QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 12 2006, 01:31 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 09:01 PM)
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..
Okay, you say it falls apart on its own. Why is it going up so much?
Hi Chris, everyone. Isn't that about where the lower half of the core temporarily obstructs the downward collapse of the 'central' part of the debris 'plug' formed by most of the upper core, its inner concrete floor slabs and hat-truss?
If so, that's EXACTLY where I would expect an EXTRA AMOUNT of 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects before the remnant core itself succumbs to the DOUBTLESS damage that such a 'rebound/expulsion' PILE-DRIVER 'hit' would have done to all its 'integral' geometry/interconnections.
So Chris, in fact, that extra 'explosive-looking' effect AT THAT LEVEL shows that it was the collapse to that stage that produced it...and not high-explosives. That's how I connect the height/effects with the core remnant height/status information presented by you guys. Ciao!
RC.
.
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..
Okay, you say it falls apart on its own. Why is it going up so much?
Hi Chris, everyone. Isn't that about where the lower half of the core temporarily obstructs the downward collapse of the 'central' part of the debris 'plug' formed by most of the upper core, its inner concrete floor slabs and hat-truss?
If so, that's EXACTLY where I would expect an EXTRA AMOUNT of 'UP-rebound/SIDE-expulsion' effects before the remnant core itself succumbs to the DOUBTLESS damage that such a 'rebound/expulsion' PILE-DRIVER 'hit' would have done to all its 'integral' geometry/interconnections.
So Chris, in fact, that extra 'explosive-looking' effect AT THAT LEVEL shows that it was the collapse to that stage that produced it...and not high-explosives. That's how I connect the height/effects with the core remnant height/status information presented by you guys. Ciao!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 09:49 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:41 AM)
When I'm gone from this Earth I SINCERELY hope that I'm talked about for as long and as often as the CT'ers have talked about Schneibster since he's been gone.
Talk about a LEGACY.
BYU Jone's would do anything to attain his level of FAME.
Arthur
That's what I've been saying. What an honor to be thought of as Schneibster, the man who etched his name into every CTer. HEHEHE!!!
I'm about to head to a party/reception.
Its being thrown by one of my neighbors, one of the biggest Democratic Party supporters in Tenn.
Even so, I bet they get a good laugh out of this topic
See ya
Arthur
Talk about a LEGACY.
BYU Jone's would do anything to attain his level of FAME.
Arthur
That's what I've been saying. What an honor to be thought of as Schneibster, the man who etched his name into every CTer. HEHEHE!!!
I'm about to head to a party/reception.
Its being thrown by one of my neighbors, one of the biggest Democratic Party supporters in Tenn.
Even so, I bet they get a good laugh out of this topic
See ya
Arthur
Hi CS,
Regarding a previous post from you;
' \ <-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.
..............'
Would it be possible that energy pushing inward toward the coreis absorbed by the core thus stressing it? or have I misunderstood what you were saying?.
Thanks
Regarding a previous post from you;
' \ <-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.
..............'
Would it be possible that energy pushing inward toward the coreis absorbed by the core thus stressing it? or have I misunderstood what you were saying?.
Thanks
"Even so, I bet they get a good laugh out of this topic
See ya
Arthur
Ask them if they can explain why those corner sections are still standing well after collapse and how they became disconnected through a gravity collapse?
That might bring a smile to the other side of their face....... and an embarassed silence.
Gordon.
See ya
Arthur
Ask them if they can explain why those corner sections are still standing well after collapse and how they became disconnected through a gravity collapse?
That might bring a smile to the other side of their face....... and an embarassed silence.
Gordon.
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 12 2006, 01:57 AM)
Hi CS,
Regarding a previous post from you;
' \ <-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.
..............'
Would it be possible that energy pushing inward toward the coreis absorbed by the core thus stressing it? or have I misunderstood what you were saying?.
Thanks
In a three dimensional world I would suspect both are happening. The core MUST be under traumatic stress but the direction of that stress helps to hold it together a bit as well. Or at least lesson the stress. I'm by no means saying it was the only thing holding it together. It's incredibly chaotic in there. Remember, the core is the strongest part of the building. The buffeting obviously wasn't enough to destroy it instantly.
Regarding a previous post from you;
' \ <-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.
..............'
Would it be possible that energy pushing inward toward the coreis absorbed by the core thus stressing it? or have I misunderstood what you were saying?.
Thanks
In a three dimensional world I would suspect both are happening. The core MUST be under traumatic stress but the direction of that stress helps to hold it together a bit as well. Or at least lesson the stress. I'm by no means saying it was the only thing holding it together. It's incredibly chaotic in there. Remember, the core is the strongest part of the building. The buffeting obviously wasn't enough to destroy it instantly.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 01:49 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:41 AM)
When I'm gone from this Earth I SINCERELY hope that I'm talked about for as long and as often as the CT'ers have talked about Schneibster since he's been gone.
Talk about a LEGACY.
BYU Jone's would do anything to attain his level of FAME.
Arthur
That's what I've been saying. What an honor to be thought of as Schneibster, the man who etched his name into every CTer. HEHEHE!!!
dream on , shnibby, the death clown. you're only infamous on this tiny list.
if this was a poll, your 'side' would be WAY on the low end of the scale, and polls of small samples are supposed to reflect the trends of larger samples..
i don't need to use the bandwagon technique, because i'm actually ON the bandwagon, deathclown.
tell your liberal friends at the party that your helping the bushwhackers get away with not just murdering americans, but murdering america itself.
have fun at the party, clown.
p.s. that arthur guy really knows how to party. bring up a website forum thread. woohoo! pass the peanuts.
.
Talk about a LEGACY.
BYU Jone's would do anything to attain his level of FAME.
Arthur
That's what I've been saying. What an honor to be thought of as Schneibster, the man who etched his name into every CTer. HEHEHE!!!
dream on , shnibby, the death clown. you're only infamous on this tiny list.
if this was a poll, your 'side' would be WAY on the low end of the scale, and polls of small samples are supposed to reflect the trends of larger samples..
i don't need to use the bandwagon technique, because i'm actually ON the bandwagon, deathclown.
tell your liberal friends at the party that your helping the bushwhackers get away with not just murdering americans, but murdering america itself.
have fun at the party, clown.
p.s. that arthur guy really knows how to party. bring up a website forum thread. woohoo! pass the peanuts.
.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 02:05 AM)
"Even so, I bet they get a good laugh out of this topic
See ya
Arthur
Ask them if they can explain why those corner sections are still standing well after collapse and how they became disconnected through a gravity collapse?
That might bring a smile to the other side of their face....... and an embarassed silence.
Gordon.
You mean those short 20 story corner sections which could have only happened if the floors pancake? The ones which show the floors sheared off the truss suppots straight down? Like this one?
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc067.jpg
See ya
Arthur
Ask them if they can explain why those corner sections are still standing well after collapse and how they became disconnected through a gravity collapse?
That might bring a smile to the other side of their face....... and an embarassed silence.
Gordon.
You mean those short 20 story corner sections which could have only happened if the floors pancake? The ones which show the floors sheared off the truss suppots straight down? Like this one?
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc067.jpg
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 02:05 AM)
"Even so, I bet they get a good laugh out of this topic
See ya
Arthur
Ask them if they can explain why those corner sections are still standing well after collapse and how they became disconnected through a gravity collapse?
That might bring a smile to the other side of their face....... and an embarassed silence.
Gordon.
Hi gordon. I had previously held some hope that you would have PROGRESSED from '1-Dimensional' thinking to 2-D & 3-D thinking. Dashed hope! You seem to have REGRESSED to 0-Dimensional thinking! What's happened to your formerly reasonably lucid (if not correct) assessments?
Can you stand there with a straight face and tell me that such chaotic events could not produce temporary remnant structure that is itself severely compromised by that chaos so it too could 'stand' only briefly before falling apart completely because of TOTAL LOSS OF STRUCTURAL INTERCONNECTIOIN INTEGRITY which the design REQUIRED to be in place EVEN IN NORMAL circumstances, let alone that chaos?
Mate, if you have any 'lucid' assessment, please present it (but BE CAREFUL, because METAMARS will REQUIRE, nay DEMAND, your 'quantitative' analysis in support of your assessment! It seems he too cannot appreciate the bleedin' obvious, hehehe).
RC.
.
See ya
Arthur
Ask them if they can explain why those corner sections are still standing well after collapse and how they became disconnected through a gravity collapse?
That might bring a smile to the other side of their face....... and an embarassed silence.
Gordon.
Hi gordon. I had previously held some hope that you would have PROGRESSED from '1-Dimensional' thinking to 2-D & 3-D thinking. Dashed hope! You seem to have REGRESSED to 0-Dimensional thinking! What's happened to your formerly reasonably lucid (if not correct) assessments?
Can you stand there with a straight face and tell me that such chaotic events could not produce temporary remnant structure that is itself severely compromised by that chaos so it too could 'stand' only briefly before falling apart completely because of TOTAL LOSS OF STRUCTURAL INTERCONNECTIOIN INTEGRITY which the design REQUIRED to be in place EVEN IN NORMAL circumstances, let alone that chaos?
Mate, if you have any 'lucid' assessment, please present it (but BE CAREFUL, because METAMARS will REQUIRE, nay DEMAND, your 'quantitative' analysis in support of your assessment! It seems he too cannot appreciate the bleedin' obvious, hehehe).
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:46 AM)
Metamars THIS WAS THE QUOTE I WAS TALKING ABOUT:
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
QUOTE
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.
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
You mean those short 20 story corner sections which could have only happened if the floors pancaked? The ones which show the floors sheared off the truss supports straight down? Like this one?
No Arthur, I mean the ones which extended to the height of the initiation point and stayed there for about six seconds after collapse initiation, after having been disconnected from their neighbours by the descending timed charges. The ones which I showed you in a video, just a few posts ago.
The ones for which you cannot provide an explanation.
Do you know the ones to which I refer now?
Gordon.
No Arthur, I mean the ones which extended to the height of the initiation point and stayed there for about six seconds after collapse initiation, after having been disconnected from their neighbours by the descending timed charges. The ones which I showed you in a video, just a few posts ago.
The ones for which you cannot provide an explanation.
Do you know the ones to which I refer now?
Gordon.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 02:17 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:46 AM)
Metamars THIS WAS THE QUOTE I WAS TALKING ABOUT:
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
QUOTE
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.
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
ooo. i bothered to do a 1 second search, just for you , arthur(s), because my love knows no bounds(that's actually TRUE, lol!).....
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
QUOTE
Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. They are fast moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 150 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius.
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 02:08 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 01:49 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:41 AM)
When I'm gone from this Earth I SINCERELY hope that I'm talked about for as long and as often as the CT'ers have talked about Schneibster since he's been gone.
Talk about a LEGACY.
BYU Jone's would do anything to attain his level of FAME.
Arthur
That's what I've been saying. What an honor to be thought of as Schneibster, the man who etched his name into every CTer. HEHEHE!!!
dream on , shnibby, the death clown. you're only infamous on this tiny list.
if this was a poll, your 'side' would be WAY on the low end of the scale, and polls of small samples are supposed to reflect the trends of larger samples..
i don't need to use the bandwagon technique, because i'm actually ON the bandwagon, deathclown.
tell your liberal friends at the party that your helping the bushwhackers get away with not just murdering americans, but murdering america itself.
have fun at the party, clown.
p.s. that arthur guy really knows how to party. bring up a website forum thread. woohoo! pass the peanuts.
.
Sorry but you're the one who came from "ConspiracyCenteral.com" and "LibertyForum.com" and "TheRandyRhodesShow.com" (Mostly from the kookarino conspiracy sub-forums there). You packed up the internet clown cars and all spilled out here. You came out here because the clowns heard "NIST SHill is outed on physics board" Aduo and RC were already here when this thread from a bad X-Files show appeared on their door.
I'm here because I've always loved the circus.
Talk about a LEGACY.
BYU Jone's would do anything to attain his level of FAME.
Arthur
That's what I've been saying. What an honor to be thought of as Schneibster, the man who etched his name into every CTer. HEHEHE!!!
dream on , shnibby, the death clown. you're only infamous on this tiny list.
if this was a poll, your 'side' would be WAY on the low end of the scale, and polls of small samples are supposed to reflect the trends of larger samples..
i don't need to use the bandwagon technique, because i'm actually ON the bandwagon, deathclown.
tell your liberal friends at the party that your helping the bushwhackers get away with not just murdering americans, but murdering america itself.
have fun at the party, clown.
p.s. that arthur guy really knows how to party. bring up a website forum thread. woohoo! pass the peanuts.
.
Sorry but you're the one who came from "ConspiracyCenteral.com" and "LibertyForum.com" and "TheRandyRhodesShow.com" (Mostly from the kookarino conspiracy sub-forums there). You packed up the internet clown cars and all spilled out here. You came out here because the clowns heard "NIST SHill is outed on physics board" Aduo and RC were already here when this thread from a bad X-Files show appeared on their door.
I'm here because I've always loved the circus.
RC Your'e obviously behind the times, so I will repeat the post for your benefit.
If you can run this through your "clunky system" you will see that your chaotic theory does not gel with the very ordered sequence of destruction.
Gordon.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...03rd%20clip.mpg
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?
If you can run this through your "clunky system" you will see that your chaotic theory does not gel with the very ordered sequence of destruction.
Gordon.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...03rd%20clip.mpg
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?
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 02:26 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 02:08 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 01:49 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:41 AM)
When I'm gone from this Earth I SINCERELY hope that I'm talked about for as long and as often as the CT'ers have talked about Schneibster since he's been gone.
Talk about a LEGACY.
BYU Jone's would do anything to attain his level of FAME.
Arthur
That's what I've been saying. What an honor to be thought of as Schneibster, the man who etched his name into every CTer. HEHEHE!!!
dream on , shnibby, the death clown. you're only infamous on this tiny list.
if this was a poll, your 'side' would be WAY on the low end of the scale, and polls of small samples are supposed to reflect the trends of larger samples..
i don't need to use the bandwagon technique, because i'm actually ON the bandwagon, deathclown.
tell your liberal friends at the party that your helping the bushwhackers get away with not just murdering americans, but murdering america itself.
have fun at the party, clown.
p.s. that arthur guy really knows how to party. bring up a website forum thread. woohoo! pass the peanuts.
.
Sorry but you're the one who came from "ConspiracyCenteral.com" and "LibertyForum.com" and "TheRandyRhodesShow.com" (Mostly from the kookarino conspiracy sub-forums there). You packed up the internet clown cars and all spilled out here. You came out here because the clowns heard "NIST SHill is outed on physics board" Aduo and RC were already here when this thread from a bad X-Files show appeared on their door.
I'm here because I've always loved the circus.
actually, i got here by doing a google search for "physics 911", and was the first one to add "illuminati" to the spider fodder.
much love, newton.
Talk about a LEGACY.
BYU Jone's would do anything to attain his level of FAME.
Arthur
That's what I've been saying. What an honor to be thought of as Schneibster, the man who etched his name into every CTer. HEHEHE!!!
dream on , shnibby, the death clown. you're only infamous on this tiny list.
if this was a poll, your 'side' would be WAY on the low end of the scale, and polls of small samples are supposed to reflect the trends of larger samples..
i don't need to use the bandwagon technique, because i'm actually ON the bandwagon, deathclown.
tell your liberal friends at the party that your helping the bushwhackers get away with not just murdering americans, but murdering america itself.
have fun at the party, clown.
p.s. that arthur guy really knows how to party. bring up a website forum thread. woohoo! pass the peanuts.
.
Sorry but you're the one who came from "ConspiracyCenteral.com" and "LibertyForum.com" and "TheRandyRhodesShow.com" (Mostly from the kookarino conspiracy sub-forums there). You packed up the internet clown cars and all spilled out here. You came out here because the clowns heard "NIST SHill is outed on physics board" Aduo and RC were already here when this thread from a bad X-Files show appeared on their door.
I'm here because I've always loved the circus.
actually, i got here by doing a google search for "physics 911", and was the first one to add "illuminati" to the spider fodder.
much love, newton.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 02:25 AM)
ooo. i bothered to do a 1 second search, just for you , arthur(s), because my love knows no bounds(that's actually TRUE, lol!).....
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
100 C is 212 F. I believe that's enough to boil blood...
Can you or Jones tell me where 110 stories of pulverized concrete powder and gypsum would go regardless of heat? Lets say it was 70 D F. Would it go straight down into a square pile of powder? Or would it go down following the displacement of air created by the large volume of air which was once inside the towers?
QUOTE
Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. They are fast moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 150 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius.
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
100 C is 212 F. I believe that's enough to boil blood...
Can you or Jones tell me where 110 stories of pulverized concrete powder and gypsum would go regardless of heat? Lets say it was 70 D F. Would it go straight down into a square pile of powder? Or would it go down following the displacement of air created by the large volume of air which was once inside the towers?
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 02:32 AM)
RC Your'e obviously behind the times, so I will repeat the post for your benefit.
If you can run this through your "clunky system" you will see that your chaotic theory does not gel with the very ordered sequence of destruction.
Gordon.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...03rd%20clip.mpg
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?
I'll also repeat this...
This angle is to the left and closer than gordon's video.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc2a.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc2b.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc2c.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc2d.jpg
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc067.jpg
If you can run this through your "clunky system" you will see that your chaotic theory does not gel with the very ordered sequence of destruction.
Gordon.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...03rd%20clip.mpg
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?
I'll also repeat this...
This angle is to the left and closer than gordon's video.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc2a.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc2b.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc2c.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc2d.jpg
http://www.toad.com/fucknyccensors/wtc100301/wtc067.jpg
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 01:50 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 12 2006, 01:31 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 09:01 PM)
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..
Okay, you say it falls apart on its own. Why is it going up so much?
Perhaps NIST will report on this, along with all the other anomalies which give the lie to their hand-waiving "global collapse ensued" Fairy Tale, 7 years after their WTC 7 report comes out.
And I reckon that should be coming out in 20-30 years, tops.
Oh boy, I can't wait!!!
Don't despair, many, many Americans are realizing what they've allowed and want it to stop. Everyday they have more and more reason to face the truth and agree.
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..
Okay, you say it falls apart on its own. Why is it going up so much?
Perhaps NIST will report on this, along with all the other anomalies which give the lie to their hand-waiving "global collapse ensued" Fairy Tale, 7 years after their WTC 7 report comes out.
And I reckon that should be coming out in 20-30 years, tops.
Oh boy, I can't wait!!!
Don't despair, many, many Americans are realizing what they've allowed and want it to stop. Everyday they have more and more reason to face the truth and agree.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 02:25 AM)
ooo. i bothered to do a 1 second search, just for you , arthur(s), because my love knows no bounds(that's actually TRUE, lol!).....
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
Hi newt. Wasn't it Jone's/Hoffman's and other CTers point that the 'pyroclastic cloud' energy content allegedly 'indicated' ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT?
If the 'cloud' is now just 'lukewarm', then where is the need for any additional energy input to the collapse energy input from gravity?
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks? Just asking, newt....since you seem to have gone the way of all the other CTers here of late. All that comes across to Physorgforumers now is that you have all descended into a 'politically-partisan' view of the world and every event in it....and that goes for the tower collapses. What a sorry display of UFO/CT paranoia and pseudo-science/physics! Gordon is obviously in total meltdown and all the rest of you are cheering while he displays exactly where so-called scientists can go BAD when blinded by politics and religion and paranoia and self-conceit. Terrible and sad to see it happen right in front of out eyes.
A lesson in it for all budding scientist.....don't get caught up in personal beliefs/prejudices...but if you do, try the best you can to divorce these from your proper application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....at least then your 'results' might retain some credibility....and you won't be laughed at like these CTer 'masterbrains' are being laughed at!
RC.
.
QUOTE
Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. They are fast moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 150 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius.
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
Hi newt. Wasn't it Jone's/Hoffman's and other CTers point that the 'pyroclastic cloud' energy content allegedly 'indicated' ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT?
If the 'cloud' is now just 'lukewarm', then where is the need for any additional energy input to the collapse energy input from gravity?
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks? Just asking, newt....since you seem to have gone the way of all the other CTers here of late. All that comes across to Physorgforumers now is that you have all descended into a 'politically-partisan' view of the world and every event in it....and that goes for the tower collapses. What a sorry display of UFO/CT paranoia and pseudo-science/physics! Gordon is obviously in total meltdown and all the rest of you are cheering while he displays exactly where so-called scientists can go BAD when blinded by politics and religion and paranoia and self-conceit. Terrible and sad to see it happen right in front of out eyes.
A lesson in it for all budding scientist.....don't get caught up in personal beliefs/prejudices...but if you do, try the best you can to divorce these from your proper application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....at least then your 'results' might retain some credibility....and you won't be laughed at like these CTer 'masterbrains' are being laughed at!
RC.
.
Personally, I think the photo here...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc2d.jpg
Is what we are seeing here...
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif
... I.E. nothing more than a dense dust-cloud mass. If you blow the 2nd photo up really big, there really doesn't appear to be a hard-defined shape there at all.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc2d.jpg
Is what we are seeing here...
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif
... I.E. nothing more than a dense dust-cloud mass. If you blow the 2nd photo up really big, there really doesn't appear to be a hard-defined shape there at all.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 02:46 AM)
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks?
NOW???
Where have you been for the last 500 pages mate? HEHE!
NOW???
Where have you been for the last 500 pages mate? HEHE!
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 02:32 AM)
RC Your'e obviously behind the times, so I will repeat the post for your benefit.
If you can run this through your "clunky system" you will see that your chaotic theory does not gel with the very ordered sequence of destruction.
Gordon.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...03rd%20clip.mpg
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?
I get a distinct impression of the tower being severed, with explosions advancing upward as gravity brings it down, meaning that what is left below doesn't have the top sitting on it.
The top piece is being pulverized from the point of severence upward as it drops. When it would have hit, if it still existed, the tower below begins the same event downward from the corner.
If you can run this through your "clunky system" you will see that your chaotic theory does not gel with the very ordered sequence of destruction.
Gordon.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...03rd%20clip.mpg
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?
I get a distinct impression of the tower being severed, with explosions advancing upward as gravity brings it down, meaning that what is left below doesn't have the top sitting on it.
The top piece is being pulverized from the point of severence upward as it drops. When it would have hit, if it still existed, the tower below begins the same event downward from the corner.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 12 2006, 02:51 AM)
Personally, I think the photo here...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc2d.jpg
Is what we are seeing here...
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif
... I.E. nothing more than a dense dust-cloud mass. If you blow the 2nd photo up really big, there really doesn't appear to be a hard-defined shape there at all.
The upper photos dust cloud is too far to the left.
We are looking almost down the face of WTC 1. The center of the core of 2 would be 1/2 the width of WTC 1 left of the left side of 1.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc2d.jpg
Is what we are seeing here...
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif
... I.E. nothing more than a dense dust-cloud mass. If you blow the 2nd photo up really big, there really doesn't appear to be a hard-defined shape there at all.
The upper photos dust cloud is too far to the left.
We are looking almost down the face of WTC 1. The center of the core of 2 would be 1/2 the width of WTC 1 left of the left side of 1.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 02:32 AM)
RC Your'e obviously behind the times, so I will repeat the post for your benefit.
If you can run this through your "clunky system" you will see that your chaotic theory does not gel with the very ordered sequence of destruction.
Gordon.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...03rd%20clip.mpg
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?
Ho come on, gordon. Metamars just got through using the 'dynamical system' argument to argue that NOT EVERYTHING in the alleged 'pyroclastic cloud' might have been 'incinerated'....even though NONE of any surrounding trucks, cars, paper, trees, PEOPLE were 'incinerated AT ALL.
BUT SUDDENLY, THIS SAME 'ARGUMENT' IS NOT POSSIBLE IN YOUR MIND WHEN IT COMES TO EXPLAINING THAT SELFSAME CHAOS/DYNAMICAL-SYSTEM THAT THE TOWER COLLAPSES REPRESENTED, and which DROVE the 'clouds'?. Why not, when it will (as metamars attempted to do with the 'cloud') explain EXACTLY WHY all those 'bits' and 'pieces' would be CHAOTICALLY AFFECTED/THROWN ABOUT AND 'TEMPORARILY POSITIONED' in TRANSIENT CHAOTIC STABILITY-NODES where the forces MOMENTARILY acted so as to counter each others' effects long enough for things to be where they are and fall where they fall etc.?
Can you honestly tell me that it's OK for metamars to invoke CHAOS/dynamics...but it's NOT OK for me and others? Is that the level of objectivity and 'scientific integrity' you subscribe to when considering your 'analytical constructs'?
RC.
.
If you can run this through your "clunky system" you will see that your chaotic theory does not gel with the very ordered sequence of destruction.
Gordon.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...03rd%20clip.mpg
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?
Ho come on, gordon. Metamars just got through using the 'dynamical system' argument to argue that NOT EVERYTHING in the alleged 'pyroclastic cloud' might have been 'incinerated'....even though NONE of any surrounding trucks, cars, paper, trees, PEOPLE were 'incinerated AT ALL.
BUT SUDDENLY, THIS SAME 'ARGUMENT' IS NOT POSSIBLE IN YOUR MIND WHEN IT COMES TO EXPLAINING THAT SELFSAME CHAOS/DYNAMICAL-SYSTEM THAT THE TOWER COLLAPSES REPRESENTED, and which DROVE the 'clouds'?. Why not, when it will (as metamars attempted to do with the 'cloud') explain EXACTLY WHY all those 'bits' and 'pieces' would be CHAOTICALLY AFFECTED/THROWN ABOUT AND 'TEMPORARILY POSITIONED' in TRANSIENT CHAOTIC STABILITY-NODES where the forces MOMENTARILY acted so as to counter each others' effects long enough for things to be where they are and fall where they fall etc.?
Can you honestly tell me that it's OK for metamars to invoke CHAOS/dynamics...but it's NOT OK for me and others? Is that the level of objectivity and 'scientific integrity' you subscribe to when considering your 'analytical constructs'?
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 02:46 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 02:25 AM)
ooo. i bothered to do a 1 second search, just for you , arthur(s), because my love knows no bounds(that's actually TRUE, lol!).....
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
Hi newt. Wasn't it Jone's/Hoffman's and other CTers point that the 'pyroclastic cloud' energy content allegedly 'indicated' ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT?
If the 'cloud' is now just 'lukewarm', then where is the need for any additional energy input to the collapse energy input from gravity?
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks? Just asking, newt....since you seem to have gone the way of all the other CTers here of late. All that comes across to Physorgforumers now is that you have all descended into a 'politically-partisan' view of the world and every event in it....and that goes for the tower collapses. What a sorry display of UFO/CT paranoia and pseudo-science/physics! Gordon is obviously in total meltdown and all the rest of you are cheering while he displays exactly where so-called scientists can go BAD when blinded by politics and religion and paranoia and self-conceit. Terrible and sad to see it happen right in front of out eyes.
A lesson in it for all budding scientist.....don't get caught up in personal beliefs/prejudices...but if you do, try the best you can to divorce these from your proper application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....at least then your 'results' might retain some credibility....and you won't be laughed at like these CTer 'masterbrains' are being laughed at!
RC.
.
i just wanted to point out that arthur was a BIG FAT LIAR.
i guess, to be a fair witness, i could have given the alternative possibility, which is MORON.
haha face, haha face, haha face
and your 'silent majority' and your 'physorg observers' and whatever else exists in your 'scientific method' mind can laugh as silently as they like. it has no effect on truth.
haha face, haha face, haha face
QUOTE
Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. They are fast moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 150 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius.
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
Hi newt. Wasn't it Jone's/Hoffman's and other CTers point that the 'pyroclastic cloud' energy content allegedly 'indicated' ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT?
If the 'cloud' is now just 'lukewarm', then where is the need for any additional energy input to the collapse energy input from gravity?
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks? Just asking, newt....since you seem to have gone the way of all the other CTers here of late. All that comes across to Physorgforumers now is that you have all descended into a 'politically-partisan' view of the world and every event in it....and that goes for the tower collapses. What a sorry display of UFO/CT paranoia and pseudo-science/physics! Gordon is obviously in total meltdown and all the rest of you are cheering while he displays exactly where so-called scientists can go BAD when blinded by politics and religion and paranoia and self-conceit. Terrible and sad to see it happen right in front of out eyes.
A lesson in it for all budding scientist.....don't get caught up in personal beliefs/prejudices...but if you do, try the best you can to divorce these from your proper application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....at least then your 'results' might retain some credibility....and you won't be laughed at like these CTer 'masterbrains' are being laughed at!
RC.
.
i just wanted to point out that arthur was a BIG FAT LIAR.
i guess, to be a fair witness, i could have given the alternative possibility, which is MORON.
haha face, haha face, haha face
and your 'silent majority' and your 'physorg observers' and whatever else exists in your 'scientific method' mind can laugh as silently as they like. it has no effect on truth.
haha face, haha face, haha face
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 01:08 AM)
Clown Roster:
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
VS:
the murderer car:
adoucette/shniebster
reality check/shneibster
common sense/shneibster
yes it did
I have not been posting but sign me up for the clown car.
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
VS:
the murderer car:
adoucette/shniebster
reality check/shneibster
common sense/shneibster
yes it did
I have not been posting but sign me up for the clown car.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 02:24 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 02:17 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:46 AM)
Metamars THIS WAS THE QUOTE I WAS TALKING ABOUT:
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
Even so, Gordon's engineering background allows him to be quantitative in essential ways that others of us can't be who lack his training - even those of us with physics and mathematics backgrounds. I am looking forward to the final release of his paper, even though it's a given that I won't understand all of it.
If you were seriously interested in getting to the bottom of the collapse, you would be overjoyed that Gordon is contributing his efforts.
QUOTE
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.
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
Even so, Gordon's engineering background allows him to be quantitative in essential ways that others of us can't be who lack his training - even those of us with physics and mathematics backgrounds. I am looking forward to the final release of his paper, even though it's a given that I won't understand all of it.
If you were seriously interested in getting to the bottom of the collapse, you would be overjoyed that Gordon is contributing his efforts.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:41 AM)
When I'm gone from this Earth I SINCERELY hope that I'm talked about for as long and as often as the CT'ers have talked about Schneibster since he's been gone.
Threatening to axe someone you disagree with on a public physics forum does tend to leave a lasting impression. Wouldn't you agree? No?
Threatening to axe someone you disagree with on a public physics forum does tend to leave a lasting impression. Wouldn't you agree? No?
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 12 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 01:08 AM)
Clown Roster:
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
VS:
the murderer car:
adoucette/shniebster
reality check/shneibster
common sense/shneibster
yes it did
I have not been posting but sign me up for the clown car.
Welcome aboard, Lon!
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
VS:
the murderer car:
adoucette/shniebster
reality check/shneibster
common sense/shneibster
yes it did
I have not been posting but sign me up for the clown car.
Welcome aboard, Lon!
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 02:46 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 02:25 AM)
ooo. i bothered to do a 1 second search, just for you , arthur(s), because my love knows no bounds(that's actually TRUE, lol!).....
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
Hi newt. Wasn't it Jone's/Hoffman's and other CTers point that the 'pyroclastic cloud' energy content allegedly 'indicated' ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT?
If the 'cloud' is now just 'lukewarm', then where is the need for any additional energy input to the collapse energy input from gravity?
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks? Just asking, newt....since you seem to have gone the way of all the other CTers here of late. All that comes across to Physorgforumers now is that you have all descended into a 'politically-partisan' view of the world and every event in it....and that goes for the tower collapses. What a sorry display of UFO/CT paranoia and pseudo-science/physics! Gordon is obviously in total meltdown and all the rest of you are cheering while he displays exactly where so-called scientists can go BAD when blinded by politics and religion and paranoia and self-conceit. Terrible and sad to see it happen right in front of out eyes.
A lesson in it for all budding scientist.....don't get caught up in personal beliefs/prejudices...but if you do, try the best you can to divorce these from your proper application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....at least then your 'results' might retain some credibility....and you won't be laughed at like these CTer 'masterbrains' are being laughed at!
RC.
.
i just wanted to point out that arthur was a BIG FAT LIAR.
i guess, to be a fair witness, i could have given the alternative possibility, which is MORON.
haha face, haha face, haha face
and your 'silent majority' and your 'physorg abservers' and whatever else exists in your 'scientific method' mind can laugh as silently as they like. it has no effect on truth.
haha face, haha face, haha face
I would hope not on the 'objective truth', no. But since 'your truth' seems more and more to be looking as rickety as the the core remnants before they too fell into the dust of objective physics/history, that laughter DOES have en effect on your 'version' of the truth, and on the intellectual integrity or lack thereof which that 'risible version' of the 'truth' represents in your CTer collective case. And that laughter is only getting louder and more justified the longer this farce of a 'Basic Physics' thread goes on....especially if all you have left are double-standards of evidence and ridiculous assertions and unjustifiable personal attacks and innuendos. Think about that, newt, before the next 'knee-jerk' witless witticism issues from your mouth before your brain is properly engaged.
Toodles!
RC.
.
QUOTE
Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. They are fast moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 150 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius.
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
Hi newt. Wasn't it Jone's/Hoffman's and other CTers point that the 'pyroclastic cloud' energy content allegedly 'indicated' ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT?
If the 'cloud' is now just 'lukewarm', then where is the need for any additional energy input to the collapse energy input from gravity?
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks? Just asking, newt....since you seem to have gone the way of all the other CTers here of late. All that comes across to Physorgforumers now is that you have all descended into a 'politically-partisan' view of the world and every event in it....and that goes for the tower collapses. What a sorry display of UFO/CT paranoia and pseudo-science/physics! Gordon is obviously in total meltdown and all the rest of you are cheering while he displays exactly where so-called scientists can go BAD when blinded by politics and religion and paranoia and self-conceit. Terrible and sad to see it happen right in front of out eyes.
A lesson in it for all budding scientist.....don't get caught up in personal beliefs/prejudices...but if you do, try the best you can to divorce these from your proper application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....at least then your 'results' might retain some credibility....and you won't be laughed at like these CTer 'masterbrains' are being laughed at!
RC.
.
i just wanted to point out that arthur was a BIG FAT LIAR.
i guess, to be a fair witness, i could have given the alternative possibility, which is MORON.
haha face, haha face, haha face
and your 'silent majority' and your 'physorg abservers' and whatever else exists in your 'scientific method' mind can laugh as silently as they like. it has no effect on truth.
haha face, haha face, haha face
I would hope not on the 'objective truth', no. But since 'your truth' seems more and more to be looking as rickety as the the core remnants before they too fell into the dust of objective physics/history, that laughter DOES have en effect on your 'version' of the truth, and on the intellectual integrity or lack thereof which that 'risible version' of the 'truth' represents in your CTer collective case. And that laughter is only getting louder and more justified the longer this farce of a 'Basic Physics' thread goes on....especially if all you have left are double-standards of evidence and ridiculous assertions and unjustifiable personal attacks and innuendos. Think about that, newt, before the next 'knee-jerk' witless witticism issues from your mouth before your brain is properly engaged.
Toodles!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 12 2006, 03:19 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:41 AM)
When I'm gone from this Earth I SINCERELY hope that I'm talked about for as long and as often as the CT'ers have talked about Schneibster since he's been gone.
Threatening to axe someone you disagree with on a public physics forum does tend to leave a lasting impression. Wouldn't you agree? No?
I guess if your stupid enough to to think he could go through the monitor...
Threatening to axe someone you disagree with on a public physics forum does tend to leave a lasting impression. Wouldn't you agree? No?
I guess if your stupid enough to to think he could go through the monitor...
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 03:21 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 02:46 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 02:25 AM)
ooo. i bothered to do a 1 second search, just for you , arthur(s), because my love knows no bounds(that's actually TRUE, lol!).....
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
Hi newt. Wasn't it Jone's/Hoffman's and other CTers point that the 'pyroclastic cloud' energy content allegedly 'indicated' ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT?
If the 'cloud' is now just 'lukewarm', then where is the need for any additional energy input to the collapse energy input from gravity?
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks? Just asking, newt....since you seem to have gone the way of all the other CTers here of late. All that comes across to Physorgforumers now is that you have all descended into a 'politically-partisan' view of the world and every event in it....and that goes for the tower collapses. What a sorry display of UFO/CT paranoia and pseudo-science/physics! Gordon is obviously in total meltdown and all the rest of you are cheering while he displays exactly where so-called scientists can go BAD when blinded by politics and religion and paranoia and self-conceit. Terrible and sad to see it happen right in front of out eyes.
A lesson in it for all budding scientist.....don't get caught up in personal beliefs/prejudices...but if you do, try the best you can to divorce these from your proper application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....at least then your 'results' might retain some credibility....and you won't be laughed at like these CTer 'masterbrains' are being laughed at!
RC.
.
i just wanted to point out that arthur was a BIG FAT LIAR.
i guess, to be a fair witness, i could have given the alternative possibility, which is MORON.
haha face, haha face, haha face
and your 'silent majority' and your 'physorg abservers' and whatever else exists in your 'scientific method' mind can laugh as silently as they like. it has no effect on truth.
haha face, haha face, haha face
I would hope not on the 'objective truth', no. But since 'your truth' seems more and more to be looking as rickety as the the core remnants before they too fell into the dust of objective physics/history, that laughter DOES have en effect on your 'version' of the truth, and on the intellectual integrity or lack thereof which that 'risible version' of the 'truth' represents in your CTer collective case. And that laughter is only getting louder and more justified the longer this farce of a 'Basic Physics' thread goes on....especially if all you have left are double-standards of evidence and ridiculous assertions and unjustifiable personal attacks and innuendos. Think about that, newt, before the next 'knee-jerk' witless witticism issues from your mouth before your brain is properly engaged.
Toodles!
RC.
.
ooooooo. the silent laughter of the invisible army of puppets that agree with the murderer car is getting louder.
i'm SO HUMILIATED and scared.
WANNNNNNH! MOMMY! help me. someone's being mean to me.
perhaps the hot crunch which caused the super hot thermal sigs and molten metal(not hot enough to cause any pyroclastic flows, though), and the coincidental thermobaric bomb(also not adding much heat), and the coincidental thermite(not hot at all) really do objectively explain everything.
i mean. let's face it. it really doesn't have to be that hot to melt steel and cause those thermal signatures.
reality debit.
QUOTE
Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. They are fast moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 150 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius.
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
Hi newt. Wasn't it Jone's/Hoffman's and other CTers point that the 'pyroclastic cloud' energy content allegedly 'indicated' ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT?
If the 'cloud' is now just 'lukewarm', then where is the need for any additional energy input to the collapse energy input from gravity?
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks? Just asking, newt....since you seem to have gone the way of all the other CTers here of late. All that comes across to Physorgforumers now is that you have all descended into a 'politically-partisan' view of the world and every event in it....and that goes for the tower collapses. What a sorry display of UFO/CT paranoia and pseudo-science/physics! Gordon is obviously in total meltdown and all the rest of you are cheering while he displays exactly where so-called scientists can go BAD when blinded by politics and religion and paranoia and self-conceit. Terrible and sad to see it happen right in front of out eyes.
A lesson in it for all budding scientist.....don't get caught up in personal beliefs/prejudices...but if you do, try the best you can to divorce these from your proper application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....at least then your 'results' might retain some credibility....and you won't be laughed at like these CTer 'masterbrains' are being laughed at!
RC.
.
i just wanted to point out that arthur was a BIG FAT LIAR.
i guess, to be a fair witness, i could have given the alternative possibility, which is MORON.
haha face, haha face, haha face
and your 'silent majority' and your 'physorg abservers' and whatever else exists in your 'scientific method' mind can laugh as silently as they like. it has no effect on truth.
haha face, haha face, haha face
I would hope not on the 'objective truth', no. But since 'your truth' seems more and more to be looking as rickety as the the core remnants before they too fell into the dust of objective physics/history, that laughter DOES have en effect on your 'version' of the truth, and on the intellectual integrity or lack thereof which that 'risible version' of the 'truth' represents in your CTer collective case. And that laughter is only getting louder and more justified the longer this farce of a 'Basic Physics' thread goes on....especially if all you have left are double-standards of evidence and ridiculous assertions and unjustifiable personal attacks and innuendos. Think about that, newt, before the next 'knee-jerk' witless witticism issues from your mouth before your brain is properly engaged.
Toodles!
RC.
.
ooooooo. the silent laughter of the invisible army of puppets that agree with the murderer car is getting louder.
i'm SO HUMILIATED and scared.
WANNNNNNH! MOMMY! help me. someone's being mean to me.
perhaps the hot crunch which caused the super hot thermal sigs and molten metal(not hot enough to cause any pyroclastic flows, though), and the coincidental thermobaric bomb(also not adding much heat), and the coincidental thermite(not hot at all) really do objectively explain everything.
i mean. let's face it. it really doesn't have to be that hot to melt steel and cause those thermal signatures.
reality debit.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 03:17 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 02:24 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 02:17 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:46 AM)
Metamars THIS WAS THE QUOTE I WAS TALKING ABOUT:
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
Even so, Gordon's engineering background allows him to be quantitative in essential ways that others of us can't be who lack his training - even those of us with physics and mathematics backgrounds. I am looking forward to the final release of his paper, even though it's a given that I won't understand all of it.
If you were seriously interested in getting to the bottom of the collapse, you would be overjoyed that Gordon is contributing his efforts.
Metamars. Your double-standards and bias are showing. Schneibster and others have posted sufficient quantitative physics to totally refute all the CTers' assertions. THIS WAS DONE EARLY ON, AND HAS YET TO BE REFUTED QUANTITATIVELY. Or have you forgotten that detail as to the progress of this thread. So why should I post anything more than better physicists than I have already done to refute your assertions?
Meanwhile, gordon's attempts, while 'impressive' to YOU and your 'side', represent merely ill-used and inconsistent physics applied to 'one-dimensional' analytical constructs/observations. In short: GORDON'S INPUT HAS BEEN TOTALLY IRRELEVANT IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO INCLUDE IN THOSE 'QUANTITATIVE' POSTS. He is now hopelessly compromised as to integrity of physics as well as objectivity. Don't you see how he is now floundering all over the place each time someone, even people who are NOT physicists themselves, points out YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
Stop the hypocritical cheerleading and provide your OWN 'quantitative' analysis which you demand from others, heh? BTW, I have never used a 'bowling ball' analogy...you mistake me for someone else. And in relation to that 'diesel' IGNITION manner: If you bothered to read (I know you are REALLY lazy as adoucette sussed out early on) the relevant posts properly, you will see that I never said that the same temps were required as IN a diesel engine; only the 'PRINCIPLE' of 'compression' IGNITION as opposed to 'spark' ignition. You will see also that the 'fuels' in that collapsing building would have had 'ignition temps' MUCH LOWER than for actual diesel OIL (which I never said was one of the fuels ignited when beam-ends and concrete/steel meet so as to concentrate their force on small enough areas that the PRESSURES/TEMPERATURES would be MORE than sufficient to ignite many fuel-air mixes that would have been present). So please do not take your desperation and dishonesty all the way down to the basement, metamars. Retain at least SOME dignity, by avoiding the misleading posts YOURSELF, heh?...or do you wish to be remembered as the biggest and laziest hypocrite and non-scientist at physorg to date?).
RC.
QUOTE
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.
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
Even so, Gordon's engineering background allows him to be quantitative in essential ways that others of us can't be who lack his training - even those of us with physics and mathematics backgrounds. I am looking forward to the final release of his paper, even though it's a given that I won't understand all of it.
If you were seriously interested in getting to the bottom of the collapse, you would be overjoyed that Gordon is contributing his efforts.
Metamars. Your double-standards and bias are showing. Schneibster and others have posted sufficient quantitative physics to totally refute all the CTers' assertions. THIS WAS DONE EARLY ON, AND HAS YET TO BE REFUTED QUANTITATIVELY. Or have you forgotten that detail as to the progress of this thread. So why should I post anything more than better physicists than I have already done to refute your assertions?
Meanwhile, gordon's attempts, while 'impressive' to YOU and your 'side', represent merely ill-used and inconsistent physics applied to 'one-dimensional' analytical constructs/observations. In short: GORDON'S INPUT HAS BEEN TOTALLY IRRELEVANT IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO INCLUDE IN THOSE 'QUANTITATIVE' POSTS. He is now hopelessly compromised as to integrity of physics as well as objectivity. Don't you see how he is now floundering all over the place each time someone, even people who are NOT physicists themselves, points out YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
Stop the hypocritical cheerleading and provide your OWN 'quantitative' analysis which you demand from others, heh? BTW, I have never used a 'bowling ball' analogy...you mistake me for someone else. And in relation to that 'diesel' IGNITION manner: If you bothered to read (I know you are REALLY lazy as adoucette sussed out early on) the relevant posts properly, you will see that I never said that the same temps were required as IN a diesel engine; only the 'PRINCIPLE' of 'compression' IGNITION as opposed to 'spark' ignition. You will see also that the 'fuels' in that collapsing building would have had 'ignition temps' MUCH LOWER than for actual diesel OIL (which I never said was one of the fuels ignited when beam-ends and concrete/steel meet so as to concentrate their force on small enough areas that the PRESSURES/TEMPERATURES would be MORE than sufficient to ignite many fuel-air mixes that would have been present). So please do not take your desperation and dishonesty all the way down to the basement, metamars. Retain at least SOME dignity, by avoiding the misleading posts YOURSELF, heh?...or do you wish to be remembered as the biggest and laziest hypocrite and non-scientist at physorg to date?).
RC.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 03:40 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 03:21 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 02:46 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 02:25 AM)
ooo. i bothered to do a 1 second search, just for you , arthur(s), because my love knows no bounds(that's actually TRUE, lol!).....
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
Hi newt. Wasn't it Jone's/Hoffman's and other CTers point that the 'pyroclastic cloud' energy content allegedly 'indicated' ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT?
If the 'cloud' is now just 'lukewarm', then where is the need for any additional energy input to the collapse energy input from gravity?
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks? Just asking, newt....since you seem to have gone the way of all the other CTers here of late. All that comes across to Physorgforumers now is that you have all descended into a 'politically-partisan' view of the world and every event in it....and that goes for the tower collapses. What a sorry display of UFO/CT paranoia and pseudo-science/physics! Gordon is obviously in total meltdown and all the rest of you are cheering while he displays exactly where so-called scientists can go BAD when blinded by politics and religion and paranoia and self-conceit. Terrible and sad to see it happen right in front of out eyes.
A lesson in it for all budding scientist.....don't get caught up in personal beliefs/prejudices...but if you do, try the best you can to divorce these from your proper application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....at least then your 'results' might retain some credibility....and you won't be laughed at like these CTer 'masterbrains' are being laughed at!
RC.
.
i just wanted to point out that arthur was a BIG FAT LIAR.
i guess, to be a fair witness, i could have given the alternative possibility, which is MORON.
haha face, haha face, haha face
and your 'silent majority' and your 'physorg abservers' and whatever else exists in your 'scientific method' mind can laugh as silently as they like. it has no effect on truth.
haha face, haha face, haha face
I would hope not on the 'objective truth', no. But since 'your truth' seems more and more to be looking as rickety as the the core remnants before they too fell into the dust of objective physics/history, that laughter DOES have en effect on your 'version' of the truth, and on the intellectual integrity or lack thereof which that 'risible version' of the 'truth' represents in your CTer collective case. And that laughter is only getting louder and more justified the longer this farce of a 'Basic Physics' thread goes on....especially if all you have left are double-standards of evidence and ridiculous assertions and unjustifiable personal attacks and innuendos. Think about that, newt, before the next 'knee-jerk' witless witticism issues from your mouth before your brain is properly engaged.
Toodles!
RC.
.
ooooooo. the silent laughter of the invisible army of puppets that agree with the murderer car is getting louder.
i'm SO HUMILIATED and scared.
WANNNNNNH! MOMMY! help me. someone's being mean to me.
perhaps the hot crunch which caused the super hot thermal sigs and molten metal(not hot enough to cause any pyroclastic flows, though), and the coincidental thermobaric bomb(also not adding much heat), and the coincidental thermite(not hot at all) really do objectively explain everything.
i mean. let's face it. it really doesn't have to be that hot to melt steel and cause those thermal signatures.
reality debit.
RC, I think you should just leave this post be as is. It speaks VOLUMES about newt.!
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]
I'm pretty sure the TRUTH is gaining momentum, after years of information suppression people are finally starting to wake up. Wasn't all the rubble from the WTC complex already cleaned up and shipped out 6 months before the 911 Commission even started their "investigation"?
As for this Arthur:
[QUOTE]
People (viewers, journalists, scientists etc) looked at their evidence and went:
I think this says it all
http://www.fsphost.com/ttunac/Dr.%20Jones%...0on%20MSNBC.asf
Why was Tucker so afraid to show the Dr's video to help back up his 'wild assertions'
I smell fear on you also, friend.
ooooooo. the silent laughter of the invisible army of puppets that agree with the murderer car is getting louder.
i'm SO HUMILIATED and scared.
WANNNNNNH! MOMMY! help me. someone's being mean to me.
perhaps the hot crunch which caused the super hot thermal sigs and molten metal(not hot enough to cause any pyroclastic flows, though), and the coincidental thermobaric bomb(also not adding much heat), and the coincidental thermite(not hot at all) really do objectively explain everything.
i mean. let's face it. it really doesn't have to be that hot to melt steel and cause those thermal signatures.
reality debit.
RC, I think you should just leave this post be as is. It speaks VOLUMES about newt.!
can you quantify that?
QUOTE
Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. They are fast moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 150 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius.
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
Hi newt. Wasn't it Jone's/Hoffman's and other CTers point that the 'pyroclastic cloud' energy content allegedly 'indicated' ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT?
If the 'cloud' is now just 'lukewarm', then where is the need for any additional energy input to the collapse energy input from gravity?
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks? Just asking, newt....since you seem to have gone the way of all the other CTers here of late. All that comes across to Physorgforumers now is that you have all descended into a 'politically-partisan' view of the world and every event in it....and that goes for the tower collapses. What a sorry display of UFO/CT paranoia and pseudo-science/physics! Gordon is obviously in total meltdown and all the rest of you are cheering while he displays exactly where so-called scientists can go BAD when blinded by politics and religion and paranoia and self-conceit. Terrible and sad to see it happen right in front of out eyes.
A lesson in it for all budding scientist.....don't get caught up in personal beliefs/prejudices...but if you do, try the best you can to divorce these from your proper application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....at least then your 'results' might retain some credibility....and you won't be laughed at like these CTer 'masterbrains' are being laughed at!
RC.
.
i just wanted to point out that arthur was a BIG FAT LIAR.
i guess, to be a fair witness, i could have given the alternative possibility, which is MORON.
haha face, haha face, haha face
and your 'silent majority' and your 'physorg abservers' and whatever else exists in your 'scientific method' mind can laugh as silently as they like. it has no effect on truth.
haha face, haha face, haha face
I would hope not on the 'objective truth', no. But since 'your truth' seems more and more to be looking as rickety as the the core remnants before they too fell into the dust of objective physics/history, that laughter DOES have en effect on your 'version' of the truth, and on the intellectual integrity or lack thereof which that 'risible version' of the 'truth' represents in your CTer collective case. And that laughter is only getting louder and more justified the longer this farce of a 'Basic Physics' thread goes on....especially if all you have left are double-standards of evidence and ridiculous assertions and unjustifiable personal attacks and innuendos. Think about that, newt, before the next 'knee-jerk' witless witticism issues from your mouth before your brain is properly engaged.
Toodles!
RC.
.
ooooooo. the silent laughter of the invisible army of puppets that agree with the murderer car is getting louder.
i'm SO HUMILIATED and scared.
WANNNNNNH! MOMMY! help me. someone's being mean to me.
perhaps the hot crunch which caused the super hot thermal sigs and molten metal(not hot enough to cause any pyroclastic flows, though), and the coincidental thermobaric bomb(also not adding much heat), and the coincidental thermite(not hot at all) really do objectively explain everything.
i mean. let's face it. it really doesn't have to be that hot to melt steel and cause those thermal signatures.
reality debit.
RC, I think you should just leave this post be as is. It speaks VOLUMES about newt.!
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 03:07 AM)
Ho come on, gordon. Metamars just got through using the 'dynamical system' argument to argue that NOT EVERYTHING in the alleged 'pyroclastic cloud' might have been 'incinerated'....even though NONE of any surrounding trucks, cars, paper, trees, PEOPLE were 'incinerated AT ALL.
WRONG!
See my former post.
Your logical fallacy is basically this: Hoffman's analysis was about a system that was BEST approached (in the sense of a first order approximation) using fluid hydrodynamics (and some chemistry).
Gordon is mostly focussing on the WTC's metal frames, and the forces acting on and through the frames. Thus, his experience is optimal wrt such a system.
If you claim otherwise, then please explain to us why NIST and FEMA didn't resort to "chaos theory", dynamical fluid anlysis, etc., to explain anything.* If you feel that NIST and FEMA are in error, since their whole approach is wrong (or incomplete), then why take them seriously?
And if you take them seriously, why hold Gordon to a higher standard? Is this not hypocrisy?
* Of course, I expect fire modeling software will have some fluid dynamics incorporated into it. However, this is basically not relevant to any serious criticism of Gordon's approach as lacking a "chaos theory" component, which again, is focussed on the steel frame structure.
The fluid and chaos aspects rolled into fire modelling is indirectly relevant since heating / cooling due to fire will lead to weakening of the structure via fracturing, etc. How much, precisely, seems impossible (to my non-engineering mind) to determine without a full blown FEA analysis.
I'm sure if we give Gordon $20 million, he'd be happy to elaborate his analysis.
WRONG!
See my former post.
Your logical fallacy is basically this: Hoffman's analysis was about a system that was BEST approached (in the sense of a first order approximation) using fluid hydrodynamics (and some chemistry).
Gordon is mostly focussing on the WTC's metal frames, and the forces acting on and through the frames. Thus, his experience is optimal wrt such a system.
If you claim otherwise, then please explain to us why NIST and FEMA didn't resort to "chaos theory", dynamical fluid anlysis, etc., to explain anything.* If you feel that NIST and FEMA are in error, since their whole approach is wrong (or incomplete), then why take them seriously?
And if you take them seriously, why hold Gordon to a higher standard? Is this not hypocrisy?
* Of course, I expect fire modeling software will have some fluid dynamics incorporated into it. However, this is basically not relevant to any serious criticism of Gordon's approach as lacking a "chaos theory" component, which again, is focussed on the steel frame structure.
The fluid and chaos aspects rolled into fire modelling is indirectly relevant since heating / cooling due to fire will lead to weakening of the structure via fracturing, etc. How much, precisely, seems impossible (to my non-engineering mind) to determine without a full blown FEA analysis.
I'm sure if we give Gordon $20 million, he'd be happy to elaborate his analysis.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:01 AM)
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]
I'm pretty sure the TRUTH is gaining momentum, after years of information suppression people are finally starting to wake up. Wasn't all the rubble from the WTC complex already cleaned up and shipped out 6 months before the 911 Commission even started their "investigation"?
As for this Arthur:
[QUOTE]
People (viewers, journalists, scientists etc) looked at their evidence and went:
I think this says it all
http://www.fsphost.com/ttunac/Dr.%20Jones%...0on%20MSNBC.asf
Why was Tucker so afraid to show the Dr's video to help back up his 'wild assertions'
I smell fear on you also, friend.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 03:40 AM)
ooooooo. the silent laughter of the invisible army of puppets that agree with the murderer car is getting louder.
i'm SO HUMILIATED and scared.
WANNNNNNH! MOMMY! help me. someone's being mean to me.
perhaps the hot crunch which caused the super hot thermal sigs and molten metal(not hot enough to cause any pyroclastic flows, though), and the coincidental thermobaric bomb(also not adding much heat), and the coincidental thermite(not hot at all) really do objectively explain everything.
i mean. let's face it. it really doesn't have to be that hot to melt steel and cause those thermal signatures.
reality debit.
RC, I think you should just leave this post be as is. It speaks VOLUMES about newt.!
can you quantify that?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 03:40 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 03:21 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 02:46 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 02:25 AM)
ooo. i bothered to do a 1 second search, just for you , arthur(s), because my love knows no bounds(that's actually TRUE, lol!).....
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
Hi newt. Wasn't it Jone's/Hoffman's and other CTers point that the 'pyroclastic cloud' energy content allegedly 'indicated' ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT?
If the 'cloud' is now just 'lukewarm', then where is the need for any additional energy input to the collapse energy input from gravity?
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks? Just asking, newt....since you seem to have gone the way of all the other CTers here of late. All that comes across to Physorgforumers now is that you have all descended into a 'politically-partisan' view of the world and every event in it....and that goes for the tower collapses. What a sorry display of UFO/CT paranoia and pseudo-science/physics! Gordon is obviously in total meltdown and all the rest of you are cheering while he displays exactly where so-called scientists can go BAD when blinded by politics and religion and paranoia and self-conceit. Terrible and sad to see it happen right in front of out eyes.
A lesson in it for all budding scientist.....don't get caught up in personal beliefs/prejudices...but if you do, try the best you can to divorce these from your proper application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....at least then your 'results' might retain some credibility....and you won't be laughed at like these CTer 'masterbrains' are being laughed at!
RC.
.
i just wanted to point out that arthur was a BIG FAT LIAR.
i guess, to be a fair witness, i could have given the alternative possibility, which is MORON.
haha face, haha face, haha face
and your 'silent majority' and your 'physorg abservers' and whatever else exists in your 'scientific method' mind can laugh as silently as they like. it has no effect on truth.
haha face, haha face, haha face
I would hope not on the 'objective truth', no. But since 'your truth' seems more and more to be looking as rickety as the the core remnants before they too fell into the dust of objective physics/history, that laughter DOES have en effect on your 'version' of the truth, and on the intellectual integrity or lack thereof which that 'risible version' of the 'truth' represents in your CTer collective case. And that laughter is only getting louder and more justified the longer this farce of a 'Basic Physics' thread goes on....especially if all you have left are double-standards of evidence and ridiculous assertions and unjustifiable personal attacks and innuendos. Think about that, newt, before the next 'knee-jerk' witless witticism issues from your mouth before your brain is properly engaged.
Toodles!
RC.
.
ooooooo. the silent laughter of the invisible army of puppets that agree with the murderer car is getting louder.
i'm SO HUMILIATED and scared.
WANNNNNNH! MOMMY! help me. someone's being mean to me.
perhaps the hot crunch which caused the super hot thermal sigs and molten metal(not hot enough to cause any pyroclastic flows, though), and the coincidental thermobaric bomb(also not adding much heat), and the coincidental thermite(not hot at all) really do objectively explain everything.
i mean. let's face it. it really doesn't have to be that hot to melt steel and cause those thermal signatures.
reality debit.
Funny how in your rush to again let fall more witless witticisms you 'conveniently' ignore what you CTers have claimed from day one....that there is plenty of HEAT SINK MASS IN THE PILE where all that heat could go into. And NOW you wish to 'use it' as the basis for your inept alusions to my 'local' event temps/processes which have YET to be refuted by the brilliant non-newton using non-pseudo-scientific witless witticisms.
Mate, I may now be feeling sorry for you, but I must now take your wilful deceit and stupidity as a sign that you are too far 'lost' to objectivity and the scientific method. As such, and since this is called Basic Physics' thread and YOU have yet to post one shred of real and consistent physics argument in support of your witless prattling here, I can only respond in the manner elicited by your own increasingly irrelevant and risible interruptions to whatever physics IS left to cover regarding 9/11 collapses.
Really, newt, I am worried that you and gordon et al seem to be acting as if you all have lost your raison d'etre because your paltry arguments are found baseless and pathetic. Don't you have a life outside UFO/CT 'mindgames'? I mean, why don't you go out and learn something useful, like PHYSICS and SCIENTIFIC METHOD and ETHICS? Good luck (and I mean it....just like I mean the aforegoing).
RC.
.
QUOTE
Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. They are fast moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 150 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius.
a'ight? k? can you drop the LIE, you FAT LIAR?
Hi newt. Wasn't it Jone's/Hoffman's and other CTers point that the 'pyroclastic cloud' energy content allegedly 'indicated' ADDITIONAL ENERGY INPUT?
If the 'cloud' is now just 'lukewarm', then where is the need for any additional energy input to the collapse energy input from gravity?
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks? Just asking, newt....since you seem to have gone the way of all the other CTers here of late. All that comes across to Physorgforumers now is that you have all descended into a 'politically-partisan' view of the world and every event in it....and that goes for the tower collapses. What a sorry display of UFO/CT paranoia and pseudo-science/physics! Gordon is obviously in total meltdown and all the rest of you are cheering while he displays exactly where so-called scientists can go BAD when blinded by politics and religion and paranoia and self-conceit. Terrible and sad to see it happen right in front of out eyes.
A lesson in it for all budding scientist.....don't get caught up in personal beliefs/prejudices...but if you do, try the best you can to divorce these from your proper application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....at least then your 'results' might retain some credibility....and you won't be laughed at like these CTer 'masterbrains' are being laughed at!
RC.
.
i just wanted to point out that arthur was a BIG FAT LIAR.
i guess, to be a fair witness, i could have given the alternative possibility, which is MORON.
haha face, haha face, haha face
and your 'silent majority' and your 'physorg abservers' and whatever else exists in your 'scientific method' mind can laugh as silently as they like. it has no effect on truth.
haha face, haha face, haha face
I would hope not on the 'objective truth', no. But since 'your truth' seems more and more to be looking as rickety as the the core remnants before they too fell into the dust of objective physics/history, that laughter DOES have en effect on your 'version' of the truth, and on the intellectual integrity or lack thereof which that 'risible version' of the 'truth' represents in your CTer collective case. And that laughter is only getting louder and more justified the longer this farce of a 'Basic Physics' thread goes on....especially if all you have left are double-standards of evidence and ridiculous assertions and unjustifiable personal attacks and innuendos. Think about that, newt, before the next 'knee-jerk' witless witticism issues from your mouth before your brain is properly engaged.
Toodles!
RC.
.
ooooooo. the silent laughter of the invisible army of puppets that agree with the murderer car is getting louder.
i'm SO HUMILIATED and scared.
WANNNNNNH! MOMMY! help me. someone's being mean to me.
perhaps the hot crunch which caused the super hot thermal sigs and molten metal(not hot enough to cause any pyroclastic flows, though), and the coincidental thermobaric bomb(also not adding much heat), and the coincidental thermite(not hot at all) really do objectively explain everything.
i mean. let's face it. it really doesn't have to be that hot to melt steel and cause those thermal signatures.
reality debit.
Funny how in your rush to again let fall more witless witticisms you 'conveniently' ignore what you CTers have claimed from day one....that there is plenty of HEAT SINK MASS IN THE PILE where all that heat could go into. And NOW you wish to 'use it' as the basis for your inept alusions to my 'local' event temps/processes which have YET to be refuted by the brilliant non-newton using non-pseudo-scientific witless witticisms.
Mate, I may now be feeling sorry for you, but I must now take your wilful deceit and stupidity as a sign that you are too far 'lost' to objectivity and the scientific method. As such, and since this is called Basic Physics' thread and YOU have yet to post one shred of real and consistent physics argument in support of your witless prattling here, I can only respond in the manner elicited by your own increasingly irrelevant and risible interruptions to whatever physics IS left to cover regarding 9/11 collapses.
Really, newt, I am worried that you and gordon et al seem to be acting as if you all have lost your raison d'etre because your paltry arguments are found baseless and pathetic. Don't you have a life outside UFO/CT 'mindgames'? I mean, why don't you go out and learn something useful, like PHYSICS and SCIENTIFIC METHOD and ETHICS? Good luck (and I mean it....just like I mean the aforegoing).
RC.
.
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 12 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 01:08 AM)
Clown Roster:
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
VS:
the murderer car:
adoucette/shniebster
reality check/shneibster
common sense/shneibster
yes it did
I have not been posting but sign me up for the clown car.
I just realized something... 500 pages and...
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
...Ths many people attacking day in, day out for 500 pages and your case is so ridiculous not ONE previous member of Physorg has come over to your side... NOT ONE!!! HAHAHA!!!
Every one of them were recruited for this particular thread by grassy knoll conspiracy theorists.
Yet...
common sense
yesitdid
shniebster
...and previous members...
adoucette
reality check
...agree.
We didn't even post "Kooky Liberal Dean Shills outed on physics board, say Bush blew up towers" on republican sites. Imagine if one of us did that! Heh!
You need all those people just for us. I'm honored...
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
VS:
the murderer car:
adoucette/shniebster
reality check/shneibster
common sense/shneibster
yes it did
I have not been posting but sign me up for the clown car.
I just realized something... 500 pages and...
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
...Ths many people attacking day in, day out for 500 pages and your case is so ridiculous not ONE previous member of Physorg has come over to your side... NOT ONE!!! HAHAHA!!!
Every one of them were recruited for this particular thread by grassy knoll conspiracy theorists.
Yet...
common sense
yesitdid
shniebster
...and previous members...
adoucette
reality check
...agree.
We didn't even post "Kooky Liberal Dean Shills outed on physics board, say Bush blew up towers" on republican sites. Imagine if one of us did that! Heh!
You need all those people just for us. I'm honored...
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 12 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 01:08 AM)
Clown Roster:
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
VS:
the murderer car:
adoucette/shniebster
reality check/shneibster
common sense/shneibster
yes it did
I have not been posting but sign me up for the clown car.
I just realized something... 500 pages and...
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
...Ths many people attacking day in, day out for 500 pages and your case is so ridiculous not ONE previous member of Physorg has come over to your side... NOT ONE!!! HAHAHA!!!
Every one of them were recruited for this particular thread by grassy knoll conspiracy theorists.
Yet...
common sense
yesitdid
shniebster
...and previous members...
adoucette
reality check
...agree.
We didn't even post "Kooky Liberal Dean Shills outed on physics board, say Bush blew up towers" on republican sites. Imagine if one of us did that! Heh!
You need all those people just for us. I'm honored...
Could you repeat that in a slightly larger font please? Many thanks for your kind consideration.
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
VS:
the murderer car:
adoucette/shniebster
reality check/shneibster
common sense/shneibster
yes it did
I have not been posting but sign me up for the clown car.
I just realized something... 500 pages and...
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
...Ths many people attacking day in, day out for 500 pages and your case is so ridiculous not ONE previous member of Physorg has come over to your side... NOT ONE!!! HAHAHA!!!
Every one of them were recruited for this particular thread by grassy knoll conspiracy theorists.
Yet...
common sense
yesitdid
shniebster
...and previous members...
adoucette
reality check
...agree.
We didn't even post "Kooky Liberal Dean Shills outed on physics board, say Bush blew up towers" on republican sites. Imagine if one of us did that! Heh!
You need all those people just for us. I'm honored...
Could you repeat that in a slightly larger font please? Many thanks for your kind consideration.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 12 2006, 04:07 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 12 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 01:08 AM)
Clown Roster:
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
VS:
the murderer car:
adoucette/shniebster
reality check/shneibster
common sense/shneibster
yes it did
I have not been posting but sign me up for the clown car.
I just realized something... 500 pages and...
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
...Ths many people attacking day in, day out for 500 pages and your case is so ridiculous not ONE previous member of Physorg has come over to your side... NOT ONE!!! HAHAHA!!!
Every one of them were recruited for this particular thread by grassy knoll conspiracy theorists.
Yet...
common sense
yesitdid
shniebster
...and previous members...
adoucette
reality check
...agree.
We didn't even post "Kooky Liberal Dean Shills outed on physics board, say Bush blew up towers" on republican sites. Imagine if one of us did that! Heh!
You need all those people just for us. I'm honored...
Could you repeat that in a slightly larger font please? Many thanks for your kind consideration.
I'm sorry it doesn't go any bigger. Heh!
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
VS:
the murderer car:
adoucette/shniebster
reality check/shneibster
common sense/shneibster
yes it did
I have not been posting but sign me up for the clown car.
I just realized something... 500 pages and...
MMC
Trondh
galdur
computer fogie
christophera
brian
frater
luketober
Mel
reason why
rove's shill
newton
metamars
Foxx
gordon
...Ths many people attacking day in, day out for 500 pages and your case is so ridiculous not ONE previous member of Physorg has come over to your side... NOT ONE!!! HAHAHA!!!
Every one of them were recruited for this particular thread by grassy knoll conspiracy theorists.
Yet...
common sense
yesitdid
shniebster
...and previous members...
adoucette
reality check
...agree.
We didn't even post "Kooky Liberal Dean Shills outed on physics board, say Bush blew up towers" on republican sites. Imagine if one of us did that! Heh!
You need all those people just for us. I'm honored...
Could you repeat that in a slightly larger font please? Many thanks for your kind consideration.
I'm sorry it doesn't go any bigger. Heh!
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 03:47 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 03:07 AM)
Ho come on, gordon. Metamars just got through using the 'dynamical system' argument to argue that NOT EVERYTHING in the alleged 'pyroclastic cloud' might have been 'incinerated'....even though NONE of any surrounding trucks, cars, paper, trees, PEOPLE were 'incinerated AT ALL.
WRONG!
See my former post.
Your logical fallacy is basically this: Hoffman's analysis was about a system that was BEST approached (in the sense of a first order approximation) using fluid hydrodynamics (and some chemistry).
Gordon is mostly focussing on the WTC's metal frames, and the forces acting on and through the frames. Thus, his experience is optimal wrt such a system.
If you claim otherwise, then please explain to us why NIST and FEMA didn't resort to "chaos theory", dynamical fluid anlysis, etc., to explain anything.* If you feel that NIST and FEMA are in error, since their whole approach is wrong (or incomplete), then why take them seriously?
And if you take them seriously, why hold Gordon to a higher standard? Is this not hypocrisy?
* Of course, I expect fire modeling software will have some fluid dynamics incorporated into it. However, this is basically not relevant to any serious criticism of Gordon's approach as lacking a "chaos theory" component, which again, is focussed on the steel frame structure.
The fluid and chaos aspects rolled into fire modelling is indirectly relevant since heating / cooling due to fire will lead to weakening of the structure via fracturing, etc. How much, precisely, seems impossible (to my non-engineering mind) to determine without a full blown FEA analysis.
I'm sure if we give Gordon $20 million, he'd be happy to elaborate his analysis.
What in heaven's (don't believe such exists) name are you going on about?
All 'dynamic systems that involve more time/space/event variables than can be accounted for simplistically/'numerically' are BY DEFINITION chaotic in our current analytical state-of-the-art.
And who was limiting/excluding/including etc any one type of physical process (whether fluid/particulate etc)? I merely pointed to the hypocrisy of YOUR requiring perfect quantitative analyses from others of AN OBVIOUSLY MORE CHAOTIC SYSTEM THAN THE 'CLOUDS', while OBVIOUSLY neither YOU nor GORDON nor anyone else from your 'side' is prepared to likewise provide a precise quantitative analysis which will treat ALL THAT DYNAMIC THERMOPHYSICAL CHAOS. Why should we do your stupid work for you when SELF-EVIDENT and OBVIOUS REALITY is explained by videos and 'Basic Physics' which even the non-physicists at Physorg can see is consistent with the impact-fires/collapse events.
You may scoff at being laughed at by all who were here before your ridiculous claims arose, but the fact that NOT ONE is 'convinced' by your obviously nonsensical and agenda-driven 'pseudo-science' and UFO/CT 'conspiracy' jokes should tell you SOMETHING, shouldn't it?....OR ARE YOU SO FAR REMOVED FROM REALITY THAT THIS PARTICULAR EVIDENCE OF YOUR STUPIDITY, AND DISHONESTY, AND FLAGRANT ABUSE OF ALL REAL SCIENTIFICALLY-MINDED PEOPLE HERE, does not get past your 'blindspot' to everything but what YOU are 'pushing' here with scant regard for truth and respect for PHYSORG standards of scientific/physics evidence?
RC.
.
WRONG!
See my former post.
Your logical fallacy is basically this: Hoffman's analysis was about a system that was BEST approached (in the sense of a first order approximation) using fluid hydrodynamics (and some chemistry).
Gordon is mostly focussing on the WTC's metal frames, and the forces acting on and through the frames. Thus, his experience is optimal wrt such a system.
If you claim otherwise, then please explain to us why NIST and FEMA didn't resort to "chaos theory", dynamical fluid anlysis, etc., to explain anything.* If you feel that NIST and FEMA are in error, since their whole approach is wrong (or incomplete), then why take them seriously?
And if you take them seriously, why hold Gordon to a higher standard? Is this not hypocrisy?
* Of course, I expect fire modeling software will have some fluid dynamics incorporated into it. However, this is basically not relevant to any serious criticism of Gordon's approach as lacking a "chaos theory" component, which again, is focussed on the steel frame structure.
The fluid and chaos aspects rolled into fire modelling is indirectly relevant since heating / cooling due to fire will lead to weakening of the structure via fracturing, etc. How much, precisely, seems impossible (to my non-engineering mind) to determine without a full blown FEA analysis.
I'm sure if we give Gordon $20 million, he'd be happy to elaborate his analysis.
What in heaven's (don't believe such exists) name are you going on about?
All 'dynamic systems that involve more time/space/event variables than can be accounted for simplistically/'numerically' are BY DEFINITION chaotic in our current analytical state-of-the-art.
And who was limiting/excluding/including etc any one type of physical process (whether fluid/particulate etc)? I merely pointed to the hypocrisy of YOUR requiring perfect quantitative analyses from others of AN OBVIOUSLY MORE CHAOTIC SYSTEM THAN THE 'CLOUDS', while OBVIOUSLY neither YOU nor GORDON nor anyone else from your 'side' is prepared to likewise provide a precise quantitative analysis which will treat ALL THAT DYNAMIC THERMOPHYSICAL CHAOS. Why should we do your stupid work for you when SELF-EVIDENT and OBVIOUS REALITY is explained by videos and 'Basic Physics' which even the non-physicists at Physorg can see is consistent with the impact-fires/collapse events.
You may scoff at being laughed at by all who were here before your ridiculous claims arose, but the fact that NOT ONE is 'convinced' by your obviously nonsensical and agenda-driven 'pseudo-science' and UFO/CT 'conspiracy' jokes should tell you SOMETHING, shouldn't it?....OR ARE YOU SO FAR REMOVED FROM REALITY THAT THIS PARTICULAR EVIDENCE OF YOUR STUPIDITY, AND DISHONESTY, AND FLAGRANT ABUSE OF ALL REAL SCIENTIFICALLY-MINDED PEOPLE HERE, does not get past your 'blindspot' to everything but what YOU are 'pushing' here with scant regard for truth and respect for PHYSORG standards of scientific/physics evidence?
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 03:56 AM)
........... like PHYSICS and SCIENTIFIC METHOD and ETHICS? Good luck (and I mean it....just like I mean the aforegoing).
RC.
.
*cough, cough, cough*
you're really starting to shine like a crazy diamond, dude.
my physics arguments are BASIC, and no shill has ever 'defeated' them with their obfuscation, misdirection, false premises, willful ignorance or downright lies.
'unreality surplus' says "a closet full of printer toner cartridges brought down the towers in a thermobaric hot crunch, and that's the objective, scientific, quantative, ethical, physical truth. see? i proved it with my words. oh, yeah. stephen jones is stinky and stupid(within a 3% tolerance)."
RC.
.
*cough, cough, cough*
you're really starting to shine like a crazy diamond, dude.
my physics arguments are BASIC, and no shill has ever 'defeated' them with their obfuscation, misdirection, false premises, willful ignorance or downright lies.
'unreality surplus' says "a closet full of printer toner cartridges brought down the towers in a thermobaric hot crunch, and that's the objective, scientific, quantative, ethical, physical truth. see? i proved it with my words. oh, yeah. stephen jones is stinky and stupid(within a 3% tolerance)."
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 02:52 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 02:46 AM)
Or does the CTer argument now consist of disjointed assertions and inconsistent analyses and personal attacks?
NOW??? Where have you been for the last 500 pages mate? HEHE!
Hehehe. Well spotted, CS.
RC.
.
NOW???
Where have you been for the last 500 pages mate? HEHE!Hehehe. Well spotted, CS.
RC.
.
Has anyone done any research on WTC 6?
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-r...inside-wtc.html
Interesting account.
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-r...inside-wtc.html
Interesting account.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 04:27 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 03:56 AM)
........... like PHYSICS and SCIENTIFIC METHOD and ETHICS? Good luck (and I mean it....just like I mean the aforegoing).
RC.
.
*cough, cough, cough*
you're really starting to shine like a crazy diamond, dude.
my physics arguments are BASIC, and no shill has ever 'defeated' them with their obfuscation, misdirection, false premises, willful ignorance or downright lies.
'unreality surplus' says "a closet full of printer toner cartridges brought down the towers in a thermobaric hot crunch, and that's the objective, scientific, quantative, ethical, physical truth. see? i proved it with my words. oh, yeah. stephen jones is stinky and stupid(within a 3% tolerance)."
What a surprise, another vacuous attack. Can't wait for the next...
RC.
.
*cough, cough, cough*
you're really starting to shine like a crazy diamond, dude.
my physics arguments are BASIC, and no shill has ever 'defeated' them with their obfuscation, misdirection, false premises, willful ignorance or downright lies.
'unreality surplus' says "a closet full of printer toner cartridges brought down the towers in a thermobaric hot crunch, and that's the objective, scientific, quantative, ethical, physical truth. see? i proved it with my words. oh, yeah. stephen jones is stinky and stupid(within a 3% tolerance)."
What a surprise, another vacuous attack. Can't wait for the next...
Damn, there's a lot of CTs here for a physics forum.
YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
I must have missed that bit. Perhaps you could fill me in on just one point that you have made which doen't ramble on about drivel that has little or nothing to do with the subject with the odd adjective or verb thrown in just because you have heard it somewhere on your troubleshooting/varied /groundbreaking/(insert more blowhard egobosting words here) history and think that you will sound good to some other no-mark who is similarly clueless.
Let's be clear here. An education in a subject also confers the ability to assess the knowledge of others.
Gordon.
I must have missed that bit. Perhaps you could fill me in on just one point that you have made which doen't ramble on about drivel that has little or nothing to do with the subject with the odd adjective or verb thrown in just because you have heard it somewhere on your troubleshooting/varied /groundbreaking/(insert more blowhard egobosting words here) history and think that you will sound good to some other no-mark who is similarly clueless.
Let's be clear here. An education in a subject also confers the ability to assess the knowledge of others.
Gordon.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 03:17 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 02:24 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 02:17 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:46 AM)
Metamars THIS WAS THE QUOTE I WAS TALKING ABOUT:
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
Even so, Gordon's engineering background allows him to be quantitative in essential ways that others of us can't be who lack his training - even those of us with physics and mathematics backgrounds. I am looking forward to the final release of his paper, even though it's a given that I won't understand all of it.
If you were seriously interested in getting to the bottom of the collapse, you would be overjoyed that Gordon is contributing his efforts.
Metamars. Your double-standards and bias are showing. Schneibster and others have posted sufficient quantitative physics to totally refute all the CTers' assertions. THIS WAS DONE EARLY ON, AND HAS YET TO BE REFUTED QUANTITATIVELY. Or have you forgotten that detail as to the progress of this thread. So why should I post anything more than better physicists than I have already done to refute your assertions?
Meanwhile, gordon's attempts, while 'impressive' to YOU and your 'side', represent merely ill-used and inconsistent physics applied to 'one-dimensional' analytical constructs/observations. In short: GORDON'S INPUT HAS BEEN TOTALLY IRRELEVANT IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO INCLUDE IN THOSE 'QUANTITATIVE' POSTS. He is now hopelessly compromised as to integrity of physics as well as objectivity. Don't you see how he is now floundering all over the place each time someone, even people who are NOT physicists themselves, points out YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
Stop the hypocritical cheerleading and provide your OWN 'quantitaive' analysis which you demand from others, heh? BTW, I have never used a 'bowling ball' analogy...you mistake me for someone else. And in relation to that 'diesel' IGNITION manner: If you bothered to read (I know you are REALLY lazy as adoucette sussed out early on) the relevant posts properly, you will see that I never said that the same temps were required as IN a diesel engine; only the 'PRINCIPLE' of 'compression' IGNITION as opposed to 'spark' ignition. You will see also that the 'fuels' in that collapsing building would have had 'ignition temps' MUCH LOWER than for actual diesel OIL (which I never said was one of the fuels ignited when beam-ends and concrete/steel meet so as to concentrate their force on small enough areas that the PRESSURES/TEMPERATURES would be MORE than sufficient to ignite many fuel-air mixes that would have been present). So please do not take your desperation and dishonesty all the way down to the basement, metamars. Retain at least SOME dignity, by avoiding the misleading posts YOURSELF, heh?...or do yoyu wish to be rememberd as the biggest and laziest hypocrite at physorg to date?).
RC.
You:
Don't you see how he (Gordon) is now floundering all over the place each time someone, even people who are NOT physicists themselves, points out YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
Me:
No!
When I said
Me:
No!
When I said
Gordon, .. REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments.
I meant"
Gordon, .. REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments.
BTW, I was using the bowling ball analogy to illustrate a point. I am not impressed that you would have failed to understand such a simple point.
Do you have any concept, at all, of the notion of "order of magnitude estimate"?
Also, your statement
BTW, I was using the bowling ball analogy to illustrate a point. I am not impressed that you would have failed to understand such a simple point.
Do you have any concept, at all, of the notion of "order of magnitude estimate"?
Also, your statement
I never said that the same temps were required as IN a diesel engine; only the 'PRINCIPLE' of 'compression' IGNITION as opposed to 'spark' ignition.
seems typical for the obfuscators of your side. Why bother mentioning this "PRINCIPLE" unless you are implying that it had any relevance to the fireballs? The salient feature of the fireballs was their large size. Does this "PRINCIPLE" help explain this large size, or not?
If you are implying that ignition of gaseous combustibles could occur at pressure slightly greater than 1 atmosphere - then woo hoo! We already knew that!
The question is not whether the general principle of combustion at > 1 atm has any scientific validity, it's whether or not that could help explain the massive fireball seen in the specific photo of the specific WTC tower.
Like I have mentioned previously, a lot of your posting can be described as "proof by vastly improbable analogy". It's conceivable that your writing wrt diesel engine fireballs didn't even rise to that level. E.g., perhaps you were concerned that we would feel that increased pressure would prevent the ignition of flammable gasses emanating from the inside of the WTC tower.
Well, if that was your concern, rest assured that I, for one, made no such assumption.
Thus, silly goose that I am, I had assumed you were trying to explain the SIZE of the fireballs, not whether or not flammable gases could protrude, at all, beyond the perimeter of the WTC tower, itself.
If I misunderstood your intention, my apologies, and I invite you now to explain the size of the fireballs. You, being the scientist that you claim to be, should be only too happy to do more than waive your hands and say "where is your quantitiative proof that the fireballs could not have been that large"?
I'm not about to invest precious time and energy making that quantitative, any more than I would invest precious time and energy making the extremely intuitive notion in the dropped bowling ball analogy quantitative. It is you who believes and propounds the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tales. If you make such grossly unintutive claims wrt to the fireballs, it is you who should back it up with some quantitative argument.
QUOTE
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.
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
Even so, Gordon's engineering background allows him to be quantitative in essential ways that others of us can't be who lack his training - even those of us with physics and mathematics backgrounds. I am looking forward to the final release of his paper, even though it's a given that I won't understand all of it.
If you were seriously interested in getting to the bottom of the collapse, you would be overjoyed that Gordon is contributing his efforts.
Metamars. Your double-standards and bias are showing. Schneibster and others have posted sufficient quantitative physics to totally refute all the CTers' assertions. THIS WAS DONE EARLY ON, AND HAS YET TO BE REFUTED QUANTITATIVELY. Or have you forgotten that detail as to the progress of this thread. So why should I post anything more than better physicists than I have already done to refute your assertions?
Meanwhile, gordon's attempts, while 'impressive' to YOU and your 'side', represent merely ill-used and inconsistent physics applied to 'one-dimensional' analytical constructs/observations. In short: GORDON'S INPUT HAS BEEN TOTALLY IRRELEVANT IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO INCLUDE IN THOSE 'QUANTITATIVE' POSTS. He is now hopelessly compromised as to integrity of physics as well as objectivity. Don't you see how he is now floundering all over the place each time someone, even people who are NOT physicists themselves, points out YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
Stop the hypocritical cheerleading and provide your OWN 'quantitaive' analysis which you demand from others, heh? BTW, I have never used a 'bowling ball' analogy...you mistake me for someone else. And in relation to that 'diesel' IGNITION manner: If you bothered to read (I know you are REALLY lazy as adoucette sussed out early on) the relevant posts properly, you will see that I never said that the same temps were required as IN a diesel engine; only the 'PRINCIPLE' of 'compression' IGNITION as opposed to 'spark' ignition. You will see also that the 'fuels' in that collapsing building would have had 'ignition temps' MUCH LOWER than for actual diesel OIL (which I never said was one of the fuels ignited when beam-ends and concrete/steel meet so as to concentrate their force on small enough areas that the PRESSURES/TEMPERATURES would be MORE than sufficient to ignite many fuel-air mixes that would have been present). So please do not take your desperation and dishonesty all the way down to the basement, metamars. Retain at least SOME dignity, by avoiding the misleading posts YOURSELF, heh?...or do yoyu wish to be rememberd as the biggest and laziest hypocrite at physorg to date?).
RC.
You:
QUOTE
Don't you see how he (Gordon) is now floundering all over the place each time someone, even people who are NOT physicists themselves, points out YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
Me:
No!
When I said
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Don't you see how he (Gordon) is now floundering all over the place each time someone, even people who are NOT physicists themselves, points out YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH? |
Me:
No!
When I said
Gordon, .. REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments.
I meant"
QUOTE
Gordon, .. REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments.
BTW, I was using the bowling ball analogy to illustrate a point. I am not impressed that you would have failed to understand such a simple point.
Do you have any concept, at all, of the notion of "order of magnitude estimate"?
Also, your statement
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Gordon, .. REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. |
BTW, I was using the bowling ball analogy to illustrate a point. I am not impressed that you would have failed to understand such a simple point.
Do you have any concept, at all, of the notion of "order of magnitude estimate"?
Also, your statement
I never said that the same temps were required as IN a diesel engine; only the 'PRINCIPLE' of 'compression' IGNITION as opposed to 'spark' ignition.
seems typical for the obfuscators of your side. Why bother mentioning this "PRINCIPLE" unless you are implying that it had any relevance to the fireballs? The salient feature of the fireballs was their large size. Does this "PRINCIPLE" help explain this large size, or not?
If you are implying that ignition of gaseous combustibles could occur at pressure slightly greater than 1 atmosphere - then woo hoo! We already knew that!
The question is not whether the general principle of combustion at > 1 atm has any scientific validity, it's whether or not that could help explain the massive fireball seen in the specific photo of the specific WTC tower.
Like I have mentioned previously, a lot of your posting can be described as "proof by vastly improbable analogy". It's conceivable that your writing wrt diesel engine fireballs didn't even rise to that level. E.g., perhaps you were concerned that we would feel that increased pressure would prevent the ignition of flammable gasses emanating from the inside of the WTC tower.
Well, if that was your concern, rest assured that I, for one, made no such assumption.
Thus, silly goose that I am, I had assumed you were trying to explain the SIZE of the fireballs, not whether or not flammable gases could protrude, at all, beyond the perimeter of the WTC tower, itself.
If I misunderstood your intention, my apologies, and I invite you now to explain the size of the fireballs. You, being the scientist that you claim to be, should be only too happy to do more than waive your hands and say "where is your quantitiative proof that the fireballs could not have been that large"?
I'm not about to invest precious time and energy making that quantitative, any more than I would invest precious time and energy making the extremely intuitive notion in the dropped bowling ball analogy quantitative. It is you who believes and propounds the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tales. If you make such grossly unintutive claims wrt to the fireballs, it is you who should back it up with some quantitative argument.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 12 2006, 04:27 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 03:56 AM)
........... like PHYSICS and SCIENTIFIC METHOD and ETHICS? Good luck (and I mean it....just like I mean the aforegoing).
RC.
.
*cough, cough, cough*
you're really starting to shine like a crazy diamond, dude.
my physics arguments are BASIC, and no shill has ever 'defeated' them with their obfuscation, misdirection, false premises, willful ignorance or downright lies.
'unreality surplus' says "a closet full of printer toner cartridges brought down the towers in a thermobaric hot crunch, and that's the objective, scientific, quantative, ethical, physical truth. see? i proved it with my words. oh, yeah. stephen jones is stinky and stupid(within a 3% tolerance)."
I'll save this nonsense post of yours for posterity under the 'fair use' clause, heh newt? It will someday help some historian looking into the UFO/CT 'stupidity phenomenon' to piece together the 'fall and fall' of little newt as part of that devolutionary process which overtook the most 'special' among the people on the Physorg board. Could you guys provide 'snaps' for that future historian...I'm sure he would want to put the sorry faces to the sorry 'pseudo-science' they peddle under the impression that they are 'doing science' in any way whatsoever. Thanks on behalf of that future historian, newt! Toodles!
RC.
.
...Ths many people attacking day in, day out for 500 pages and your case is so ridiculous not ONE previous member of Physorg has come over to your side... NOT ONE!!! HAHAHA!!!
Every one of them were recruited for this particular thread by grassy knoll conspiracy theorists.
Yet...
common sense
yesitdid
shniebster
...and previous members...
adoucette
reality check
...agree.
We didn't even post "Kooky Liberal Dean Shills outed on physics board, say Bush blew up towers" on republican sites. Imagine if one of us did that! Heh!
You need all those people just for us. I'm honored...
I would like to test my new theory. Were any Official Conspiracy Theory supporter’s participants of any forum before 9/11?
RC.
.
*cough, cough, cough*
you're really starting to shine like a crazy diamond, dude.
my physics arguments are BASIC, and no shill has ever 'defeated' them with their obfuscation, misdirection, false premises, willful ignorance or downright lies.
'unreality surplus' says "a closet full of printer toner cartridges brought down the towers in a thermobaric hot crunch, and that's the objective, scientific, quantative, ethical, physical truth. see? i proved it with my words. oh, yeah. stephen jones is stinky and stupid(within a 3% tolerance)."
I'll save this nonsense post of yours for posterity under the 'fair use' clause, heh newt? It will someday help some historian looking into the UFO/CT 'stupidity phenomenon' to piece together the 'fall and fall' of little newt as part of that devolutionary process which overtook the most 'special' among the people on the Physorg board. Could you guys provide 'snaps' for that future historian...I'm sure he would want to put the sorry faces to the sorry 'pseudo-science' they peddle under the impression that they are 'doing science' in any way whatsoever. Thanks on behalf of that future historian, newt! Toodles!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 07:56 PM)
...Ths many people attacking day in, day out for 500 pages and your case is so ridiculous not ONE previous member of Physorg has come over to your side... NOT ONE!!! HAHAHA!!!
Every one of them were recruited for this particular thread by grassy knoll conspiracy theorists.
Yet...
common sense
yesitdid
shniebster
...and previous members...
adoucette
reality check
...agree.
We didn't even post "Kooky Liberal Dean Shills outed on physics board, say Bush blew up towers" on republican sites. Imagine if one of us did that! Heh!
You need all those people just for us. I'm honored...
I would like to test my new theory. Were any Official Conspiracy Theory supporter’s participants of any forum before 9/11?
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 04:37 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 03:17 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 12 2006, 02:24 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 12 2006, 02:17 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 12 2006, 01:46 AM)
Metamars THIS WAS THE QUOTE I WAS TALKING ABOUT:
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
Even so, Gordon's engineering background allows him to be quantitative in essential ways that others of us can't be who lack his training - even those of us with physics and mathematics backgrounds. I am looking forward to the final release of his paper, even though it's a given that I won't understand all of it.
If you were seriously interested in getting to the bottom of the collapse, you would be overjoyed that Gordon is contributing his efforts.
Metamars. Your double-standards and bias are showing. Schneibster and others have posted sufficient quantitative physics to totally refute all the CTers' assertions. THIS WAS DONE EARLY ON, AND HAS YET TO BE REFUTED QUANTITATIVELY. Or have you forgotten that detail as to the progress of this thread. So why should I post anything more than better physicists than I have already done to refute your assertions?
Meanwhile, gordon's attempts, while 'impressive' to YOU and your 'side', represent merely ill-used and inconsistent physics applied to 'one-dimensional' analytical constructs/observations. In short: GORDON'S INPUT HAS BEEN TOTALLY IRRELEVANT IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO INCLUDE IN THOSE 'QUANTITATIVE' POSTS. He is now hopelessly compromised as to integrity of physics as well as objectivity. Don't you see how he is now floundering all over the place each time someone, even people who are NOT physicists themselves, points out YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
Stop the hypocritical cheerleading and provide your OWN 'quantitaive' analysis which you demand from others, heh? BTW, I have never used a 'bowling ball' analogy...you mistake me for someone else. And in relation to that 'diesel' IGNITION manner: If you bothered to read (I know you are REALLY lazy as adoucette sussed out early on) the relevant posts properly, you will see that I never said that the same temps were required as IN a diesel engine; only the 'PRINCIPLE' of 'compression' IGNITION as opposed to 'spark' ignition. You will see also that the 'fuels' in that collapsing building would have had 'ignition temps' MUCH LOWER than for actual diesel OIL (which I never said was one of the fuels ignited when beam-ends and concrete/steel meet so as to concentrate their force on small enough areas that the PRESSURES/TEMPERATURES would be MORE than sufficient to ignite many fuel-air mixes that would have been present). So please do not take your desperation and dishonesty all the way down to the basement, metamars. Retain at least SOME dignity, by avoiding the misleading posts YOURSELF, heh?...or do yoyu wish to be rememberd as the biggest and laziest hypocrite at physorg to date?).
RC.
You:
Don't you see how he (Gordon) is now floundering all over the place each time someone, even people who are NOT physicists themselves, points out YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
Me:
No!
When I said
Me:
No!
When I said
Gordon, .. REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments.
I meant"
Gordon, .. REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments.
BTW, I was using the bowling ball analogy to illustrate a point. I am not impressed that you would have failed to understand such a simple point.
Do you have any concept, at all, of the notion of "order of magnitude estimate"?
Also, your statement
BTW, I was using the bowling ball analogy to illustrate a point. I am not impressed that you would have failed to understand such a simple point.
Do you have any concept, at all, of the notion of "order of magnitude estimate"?
Also, your statement
I never said that the same temps were required as IN a diesel engine; only the 'PRINCIPLE' of 'compression' IGNITION as opposed to 'spark' ignition.
seems typical for the obfuscators of your side. Why bother mentioning this "PRINCIPLE" unless you are implying that it had any relevance to the fireballs? The salient feature of the fireballs was their large size. Does this "PRINCIPLE" help explain this large size, or not?
If you are implying that ignition of gaseous combustibles could occur at pressure slightly greater than 1 atmosphere - then woo hoo! We already knew that!
The question is not whether the general principle of combustion at > 1 atm has any scientific validity, it's whether or not that could help explain the massive fireball seen in the specific photo of the specific WTC tower.
Like I have mentioned previously, a lot of your posting can be described as "proof by vastly improbable analogy". It's conceivable that your writing wrt diesel engine fireballs didn't even rise to that level. E.g., perhaps you were concerned that we would feel that increased pressure would prevent the ignition of flammable gasses emanating from the inside of the WTC tower.
Well, if that was your concern, rest assured that I, for one, made no such assumption.
Thus, silly goose that I am, I had assumed you were trying to explain the SIZE of the fireballs, not whether or not flammable gases could protrude, at all, beyond the perimeter of the WTC tower, itself.
If I misunderstood your intention, my apologies, and I invite you now to explain the size of the fireballs. You, being the scientist that you claim to be, should be only too happy to do more than waive your hands and say "where is your quantitiative proof that the fireballs could not have been that large"?
I'm not about to invest precious time and energy making that quantitative, any more than I would invest precious time and energy making the extremely intuitive notion in the dropped bowling ball analogy quantitative. It is you who believes and propounds the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tales. If you make such grossly unintutive claims wrt to the fireballs, it is you who should back it up with some quantitative argument.
If any fair tales exist ist from the "Swiftboat Crackpots for 911 Lies"
Hes a con man...
QUOTE
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.
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
So what about those Asbestos Trees?
Neat species whose leaves handle 1000K and STAY GREEN.
Friggin Amazing.
Arthur
And I tell you, again, that my opinion on this photo has not changed. My opinion is still: it's a fake, and obviously a fake.
As for the tree with green leaves, you have not answered my question as to where it's location is on a street map. Furthermore, some information on when the photo was taken might be helpful.
You wouldn't want me to waste time studying yet another fake photo, now, would you?
BTW, though you consistently fail to mention it, it's been told to you, many times, that nobody expects a uniform temperature of 1000K throughout the dust cloud, even after granting a "giveaway" of 1/3 the volume of the dust cloud.
One of the real questions, then, is how quickly did the temperature drop off as we go away from the source of the heating, which is bounded by, approximately the footprints of the WTC buildings?
Of course, this question is simplistic since it was clearly a dynamical system with a high degree of change. But you get the point of the question, I'm sure.
Hi metamars. You admit that the 'cloud' presents a 'dynamic system'; but what about "the HUGE and CHAOTIC system" of the gravity collapse that DROVE that 'cloud'? Does it seem reasonable that if anything about that cloud was 'dynamic', then the gravity collapse would have been EVEN MORE SO, heh? So why use the 'dynamic system' argument WHEN TRYING TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN HYPOTHESES, but discount such arguments in the even GREATER dynamic system presented by the gravity collapse when OTHERS wish to point out that same aspect of the chaos/energies involved in that gravity collapse?
Just seems a little double-standard on your part, met!
RC.
.
I am underscoring the insufficiency of my own question, as well as whatever answer it might lead to, including one which could support Hoffman's conclusions, but still be contradicted if an elaborate analysis were to be had.
To be sure, the opposite might also be the case. In a sense, I have presented a caveat, which regardless of your predisposition to taking Hoffman's conclusions seriously, in any case speaks to the need for caution in evaluating crude estimates, and thus of the need for going beyond them.
Hoffman's methods have long been admitted (by me, anyway) to be insufficient to be scientifically definitive. OTOH, he has also calculated such a tremendous energy deficit, this is all the more reason to do the work necessary to either support his central ideas and conclusions, or else to discard them.
You, on the other hand, hide behind vagaries and words, and consistently fail to make even limited attempts to be quantitative. When you are challenged on points quantitative and qualitative* , you typically evade them, or post yet more "stream of consciousness "literature" to answer them.
Any yet, you claim to be a scientist, and that Hoffman and Jones, whose accomplishments and c.v. (in the case of Jones, anyway) we can see online, are "idiots".
Schneibster at least was capable of posting solid physics arguments and calculations (at times, considerably less solid or just plain wrong at other times, though his overall record was good.)
You cannot even do that.
* with some points being "in between", e.g., air/fuel pressure inside a building being anywhere near that of a diesel engine piston. I gave common sense arguments about why pressures would be nothing like that in an enclosed diesel engine piston. After being challenged, you made not even the slightest attempt to quantify your notions, or even speak directly to most of my specific objections As was pointed out to you, the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
If you seriously claim that dropping a bowling bowl from 1000 feet will make a 100 foot deep hole in the ground, you better be prepared to show precisely why this would be so.
If you claim that dropping a bowling ball form 1000 feet will make an impression at least 1 inch deep, anybody who challenged your intuition on this point would be well advised to produce such calculations, themselves, to disprove your claim. That is because most of your audience will absolutely agree with you on an intuitive basis.
Just because your fellow popes may buy your diesel piston analogy, as well as some of your other mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anybody else will. Thus, your pompous claim that your side post "physics arguments", and our side posts nothing which is not refuted, is as grating as it is false.
Re: Gordon: I tip my hat to Gordon, who REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. No, it is not necessary to write down equations for every last point one is making. You are probably distorting my statement along the lines of
the more improbable your hypotheses, the greater the need to make it quantitative in the hopes of possibly rescuing it.
Even so, Gordon's engineering background allows him to be quantitative in essential ways that others of us can't be who lack his training - even those of us with physics and mathematics backgrounds. I am looking forward to the final release of his paper, even though it's a given that I won't understand all of it.
If you were seriously interested in getting to the bottom of the collapse, you would be overjoyed that Gordon is contributing his efforts.
Metamars. Your double-standards and bias are showing. Schneibster and others have posted sufficient quantitative physics to totally refute all the CTers' assertions. THIS WAS DONE EARLY ON, AND HAS YET TO BE REFUTED QUANTITATIVELY. Or have you forgotten that detail as to the progress of this thread. So why should I post anything more than better physicists than I have already done to refute your assertions?
Meanwhile, gordon's attempts, while 'impressive' to YOU and your 'side', represent merely ill-used and inconsistent physics applied to 'one-dimensional' analytical constructs/observations. In short: GORDON'S INPUT HAS BEEN TOTALLY IRRELEVANT IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO INCLUDE IN THOSE 'QUANTITATIVE' POSTS. He is now hopelessly compromised as to integrity of physics as well as objectivity. Don't you see how he is now floundering all over the place each time someone, even people who are NOT physicists themselves, points out YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
Stop the hypocritical cheerleading and provide your OWN 'quantitaive' analysis which you demand from others, heh? BTW, I have never used a 'bowling ball' analogy...you mistake me for someone else. And in relation to that 'diesel' IGNITION manner: If you bothered to read (I know you are REALLY lazy as adoucette sussed out early on) the relevant posts properly, you will see that I never said that the same temps were required as IN a diesel engine; only the 'PRINCIPLE' of 'compression' IGNITION as opposed to 'spark' ignition. You will see also that the 'fuels' in that collapsing building would have had 'ignition temps' MUCH LOWER than for actual diesel OIL (which I never said was one of the fuels ignited when beam-ends and concrete/steel meet so as to concentrate their force on small enough areas that the PRESSURES/TEMPERATURES would be MORE than sufficient to ignite many fuel-air mixes that would have been present). So please do not take your desperation and dishonesty all the way down to the basement, metamars. Retain at least SOME dignity, by avoiding the misleading posts YOURSELF, heh?...or do yoyu wish to be rememberd as the biggest and laziest hypocrite at physorg to date?).
RC.
You:
QUOTE
Don't you see how he (Gordon) is now floundering all over the place each time someone, even people who are NOT physicists themselves, points out YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
Me:
No!
When I said
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Don't you see how he (Gordon) is now floundering all over the place each time someone, even people who are NOT physicists themselves, points out YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH? |
Me:
No!
When I said
Gordon, .. REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments.
I meant"
QUOTE
Gordon, .. REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments.
BTW, I was using the bowling ball analogy to illustrate a point. I am not impressed that you would have failed to understand such a simple point.
Do you have any concept, at all, of the notion of "order of magnitude estimate"?
Also, your statement
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Gordon, .. REGULARLY makes mince meat of the popes' arguments. |
BTW, I was using the bowling ball analogy to illustrate a point. I am not impressed that you would have failed to understand such a simple point.
Do you have any concept, at all, of the notion of "order of magnitude estimate"?
Also, your statement
I never said that the same temps were required as IN a diesel engine; only the 'PRINCIPLE' of 'compression' IGNITION as opposed to 'spark' ignition.
seems typical for the obfuscators of your side. Why bother mentioning this "PRINCIPLE" unless you are implying that it had any relevance to the fireballs? The salient feature of the fireballs was their large size. Does this "PRINCIPLE" help explain this large size, or not?
If you are implying that ignition of gaseous combustibles could occur at pressure slightly greater than 1 atmosphere - then woo hoo! We already knew that!
The question is not whether the general principle of combustion at > 1 atm has any scientific validity, it's whether or not that could help explain the massive fireball seen in the specific photo of the specific WTC tower.
Like I have mentioned previously, a lot of your posting can be described as "proof by vastly improbable analogy". It's conceivable that your writing wrt diesel engine fireballs didn't even rise to that level. E.g., perhaps you were concerned that we would feel that increased pressure would prevent the ignition of flammable gasses emanating from the inside of the WTC tower.
Well, if that was your concern, rest assured that I, for one, made no such assumption.
Thus, silly goose that I am, I had assumed you were trying to explain the SIZE of the fireballs, not whether or not flammable gases could protrude, at all, beyond the perimeter of the WTC tower, itself.
If I misunderstood your intention, my apologies, and I invite you now to explain the size of the fireballs. You, being the scientist that you claim to be, should be only too happy to do more than waive your hands and say "where is your quantitiative proof that the fireballs could not have been that large"?
I'm not about to invest precious time and energy making that quantitative, any more than I would invest precious time and energy making the extremely intuitive notion in the dropped bowling ball analogy quantitative. It is you who believes and propounds the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tales. If you make such grossly unintutive claims wrt to the fireballs, it is you who should back it up with some quantitative argument.
If any fair tales exist ist from the "Swiftboat Crackpots for 911 Lies"
QUOTE
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
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 (gordon+Mar 12 2006, 04:36 AM)
YET ANOTHER BLUNDEROUS OMISSION IN HIS SO-CALLED 'ANALYSES' WHICH IMPRESS YOU SO MUCH?
I must have missed that bit. Perhaps you could fill me in on just one point that you have made which doen't ramble on about drivel that has little or nothing to do with the subject with the odd adjective or verb thrown in just because you have heard it somewhere on your troubleshooting/varied /groundbreaking/(insert more blowhard egobosting words here) history and think that you will sound good to some other no-mark who is similarly clueless.
Let's be clear here. An education in a subject also confers the ability to assess the knowledge of others.
Gordon.
Thank-you. I was about to waste more time answering "Reality Check's" nonsense and obfuscation, but you have saved me the time.
I might add: take a representative sample of Gordon's posts, and a representative sample of "Reality Check's" posts, to ANY physicist or engineer at a local university, and ask a simple question:
Which is written by a technically competent person, and which is drivel?
Do be kind enough to post the responses you get, properly sourced, of course.
I must have missed that bit. Perhaps you could fill me in on just one point that you have made which doen't ramble on about drivel that has little or nothing to do with the subject with the odd adjective or verb thrown in just because you have heard it somewhere on your troubleshooting/varied /groundbreaking/(insert more blowhard egobosting words here) history and think that you will sound good to some other no-mark who is similarly clueless.
Let's be clear here. An education in a subject also confers the ability to assess the knowledge of others.
Gordon.
Thank-you. I was about to waste more time answering "Reality Check's" nonsense and obfuscation, but you have saved me the time.
I might add: take a representative sample of Gordon's posts, and a representative sample of "Reality Check's" posts, to ANY physicist or engineer at a local university, and ask a simple question:
Which is written by a technically competent person, and which is drivel?
Do be kind enough to post the responses you get, properly sourced, of course.
You left out the top half:
WTC Collapse Hypothesis
Jones has written a paper regarding the September 11 terror attacks which is Scheduled for publication in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy by Elsevier, in Spring 2006. The most recent draft is posted on his faculty website at BYU. In this treatise, Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse, Jones cites evidence he says supports the hypothesis that controlled demolition, rather than simply the impact of jet airliners and the ensuing fires, caused the buildings to collapse.
Jones claims that pools of molten steel and iron were discovered in the rubble of all three buildings, and says that the type of fires present were not hot enough to melt steel or iron. The physics professor also claims that all three buildings fell symmetrically into their footprints. He maintains that this phenomenon is associated with 'controlled demolition,' and has been examined extensively by computer programmer and 9-11 conspiracy theorist Jim Hoffman. He says that, among other evidence, the speeds of the collapses, the "pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder," and the presence of horizontal puffs of smoke observed ascending the side of WTC 7," are common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings. Jones claims that some aspects of the buildings' collapses remain poorly understood and that the demolition hypothesis can quickly resolve much of the debate. A passage in his paper addresses this point:
"How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." (Harris, 2000).
Jones also examines the official reports by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (aka the 9/11 commission), which all conclude fires and damage alone caused complete demolition of all three buildings. A central topic within Jones essay is the contention that the condition and nature of the debris which remained following the buildings' collapses was not consistent with the scenarios documented by FEMA and NIST; in particular, along with the observations of molten metal at Ground Zero by Leslie Robertson (WTC structural engineer) and Dr. Allison Geyh (a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins), Jones cites and includes photographic evidence [3], which he says shows molten metal in the debris, and reports on sulfidation of structural steel.
As described in his November 10th interview with KUTV news, Jones "is not saying this is a proven theory, but rather a hypothesis. He wants a fresh new independent investigation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
WTC Collapse Hypothesis
Jones has written a paper regarding the September 11 terror attacks which is Scheduled for publication in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy by Elsevier, in Spring 2006. The most recent draft is posted on his faculty website at BYU. In this treatise, Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse, Jones cites evidence he says supports the hypothesis that controlled demolition, rather than simply the impact of jet airliners and the ensuing fires, caused the buildings to collapse.
Jones claims that pools of molten steel and iron were discovered in the rubble of all three buildings, and says that the type of fires present were not hot enough to melt steel or iron. The physics professor also claims that all three buildings fell symmetrically into their footprints. He maintains that this phenomenon is associated with 'controlled demolition,' and has been examined extensively by computer programmer and 9-11 conspiracy theorist Jim Hoffman. He says that, among other evidence, the speeds of the collapses, the "pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder," and the presence of horizontal puffs of smoke observed ascending the side of WTC 7," are common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings. Jones claims that some aspects of the buildings' collapses remain poorly understood and that the demolition hypothesis can quickly resolve much of the debate. A passage in his paper addresses this point:
"How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." (Harris, 2000).
Jones also examines the official reports by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (aka the 9/11 commission), which all conclude fires and damage alone caused complete demolition of all three buildings. A central topic within Jones essay is the contention that the condition and nature of the debris which remained following the buildings' collapses was not consistent with the scenarios documented by FEMA and NIST; in particular, along with the observations of molten metal at Ground Zero by Leslie Robertson (WTC structural engineer) and Dr. Allison Geyh (a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins), Jones cites and includes photographic evidence [3], which he says shows molten metal in the debris, and reports on sulfidation of structural steel.
As described in his November 10th interview with KUTV news, Jones "is not saying this is a proven theory, but rather a hypothesis. He wants a fresh new independent investigation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 12 2006, 04:55 AM)
You left out the top half:
WTC Collapse Hypothesis
Jones has written a paper regarding the September 11 terror attacks which is Scheduled for publication in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy by Elsevier, in Spring 2006. The most recent draft is posted on his faculty website at BYU. In this treatise, Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse, Jones cites evidence he says supports the hypothesis that controlled demolition, rather than simply the impact of jet airliners and the ensuing fires, caused the buildings to collapse.
Jones claims that pools of molten steel and iron were discovered in the rubble of all three buildings, and says that the type of fires present were not hot enough to melt steel or iron. The physics professor also claims that all three buildings fell symmetrically into their footprints. He maintains that this phenomenon is associated with 'controlled demolition,' and has been examined extensively by computer programmer and 9-11 conspiracy theorist Jim Hoffman. He says that, among other evidence, the speeds of the collapses, the "pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder," and the presence of horizontal puffs of smoke observed ascending the side of WTC 7," are common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings. Jones claims that some aspects of the buildings' collapses remain poorly understood and that the demolition hypothesis can quickly resolve much of the debate. A passage in his paper addresses this point:
"How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." (Harris, 2000).
Jones also examines the official reports by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (aka the 9/11 commission), which all conclude fires and damage alone caused complete demolition of all three buildings. A central topic within Jones essay is the contention that the condition and nature of the debris which remained following the buildings' collapses was not consistent with the scenarios documented by FEMA and NIST; in particular, along with the observations of molten metal at Ground Zero by Leslie Robertson (WTC structural engineer) and Dr. Allison Geyh (a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins), Jones cites and includes photographic evidence [3], which he says shows molten metal in the debris, and reports on sulfidation of structural steel.
As described in his November 10th interview with KUTV news, Jones "is not saying this is a proven theory, but rather a hypothesis. He wants a fresh new independent investigation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
WTC Collapse Hypothesis
Jones has written a paper regarding the September 11 terror attacks which is Scheduled for publication in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy by Elsevier, in Spring 2006. The most recent draft is posted on his faculty website at BYU. In this treatise, Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse, Jones cites evidence he says supports the hypothesis that controlled demolition, rather than simply the impact of jet airliners and the ensuing fires, caused the buildings to collapse.
Jones claims that pools of molten steel and iron were discovered in the rubble of all three buildings, and says that the type of fires present were not hot enough to melt steel or iron. The physics professor also claims that all three buildings fell symmetrically into their footprints. He maintains that this phenomenon is associated with 'controlled demolition,' and has been examined extensively by computer programmer and 9-11 conspiracy theorist Jim Hoffman. He says that, among other evidence, the speeds of the collapses, the "pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder," and the presence of horizontal puffs of smoke observed ascending the side of WTC 7," are common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings. Jones claims that some aspects of the buildings' collapses remain poorly understood and that the demolition hypothesis can quickly resolve much of the debate. A passage in his paper addresses this point:
"How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." (Harris, 2000).
Jones also examines the official reports by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (aka the 9/11 commission), which all conclude fires and damage alone caused complete demolition of all three buildings. A central topic within Jones essay is the contention that the condition and nature of the debris which remained following the buildings' collapses was not consistent with the scenarios documented by FEMA and NIST; in particular, along with the observations of molten metal at Ground Zero by Leslie Robertson (WTC structural engineer) and Dr. Allison Geyh (a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins), Jones cites and includes photographic evidence [3], which he says shows molten metal in the debris, and reports on sulfidation of structural steel.
As described in his November 10th interview with KUTV news, Jones "is not saying this is a proven theory, but rather a hypothesis. He wants a fresh new independent investigation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones