QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 13 2006, 03:57 PM)
Information on the Vacuum effect of thermobaric devices::
The resulting shock wave is not as strong as a conventional blast ,but it can do more damage as it is more sustained and ,crucially, diminishes far more gradually with distance .The main explosion is followed by a partial vacuum, creating a suction effect that compounds the damage and can add to the injuries-hence the term vacuum bomb. In enclosed spaces, the devices also use up oxygen and produce choking fumes, suffocating any survivors of the initial blast.
http://www.terroranalysis.com/story/39086.html
How long from detonation to suction. Could the building already be on the ground for the suction to start?
What you're saying doesn't make sense. It exploded, the building fell then the secondary charge ignited the the fuel. Is that what you're saying?
The resulting shock wave is not as strong as a conventional blast ,but it can do more damage as it is more sustained and ,crucially, diminishes far more gradually with distance .The main explosion is followed by a partial vacuum, creating a suction effect that compounds the damage and can add to the injuries-hence the term vacuum bomb. In enclosed spaces, the devices also use up oxygen and produce choking fumes, suffocating any survivors of the initial blast.
http://www.terroranalysis.com/story/39086.html
How long from detonation to suction. Could the building already be on the ground for the suction to start?
What you're saying doesn't make sense. It exploded, the building fell then the secondary charge ignited the the fuel. Is that what you're saying?
QUOTE (computer fogie+Mar 13 2006, 05:20 PM)
There was no "pyroclastic" cloud at the WTC sitebased on what I've learned about the meaning of the word. If you want to know what the term means, look up info on volcanoes. Pyroclastic flows are HOT.
WOW! I can't believe you said that! Aren't you worried about being labeled a *GULP* SHILL?
WOW! I can't believe you said that! Aren't you worried about being labeled a *GULP* SHILL?
Would anyone know of a plausable motive to collapse the buildings with explosives?
I think the planners of the attack would have been satisfied with the aircraft crashes alone...a statement of some sort was clearly made for all to see.
Regarding insurance claims, surely the towers were written off as soon as the aircraft impacted? Old buildings, rendered structurallly unsound. Why go to the bother to do more damage?
I do not see the logic for anyone (whether a 'goodie' or 'badie') to go to an awful lot of covert activities involving hundreds of people, dangerous substances, high risk of being detected (especially with forums like this around!) without a meaningful motive.
I'm a fan of this thread (yes I admit I am sad/lonely!). Keep up the jolly banter.
I agree with Newt...too much repetiton of quotes/graphics, get 'wheel-finger' rsi sometimes, but a small price to pay for all the intellect mixed with insults (or vice versa).
I think the planners of the attack would have been satisfied with the aircraft crashes alone...a statement of some sort was clearly made for all to see.
Regarding insurance claims, surely the towers were written off as soon as the aircraft impacted? Old buildings, rendered structurallly unsound. Why go to the bother to do more damage?
I do not see the logic for anyone (whether a 'goodie' or 'badie') to go to an awful lot of covert activities involving hundreds of people, dangerous substances, high risk of being detected (especially with forums like this around!) without a meaningful motive.
I'm a fan of this thread (yes I admit I am sad/lonely!). Keep up the jolly banter.
I agree with Newt...too much repetiton of quotes/graphics, get 'wheel-finger' rsi sometimes, but a small price to pay for all the intellect mixed with insults (or vice versa).
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 13 2006, 05:54 PM)
Would anyone know of a plausable motive to collapse the buildings with explosives?
I think the planners of the attack would have been satisfied with the aircraft crashes alone...a statement of some sort was clearly made for all to see.
Regarding insurance claims, surely the towers were written off as soon as the aircraft impacted? Old buildings, rendered structurallly unsound. Why go to the bother to do more damage?
I do not see the logic for anyone (whether a 'goodie' or 'badie') to go to an awful lot of covert activities involving hundreds of people, dangerous substances, high risk of being detected (especially with forums like this around!) without a meaningful motive.
I'm a fan of this thread (yes I admit I am sad/lonely!). Keep up the jolly banter.
I agree with Newt...too much repetiton of quotes/graphics, get 'wheel-finger' rsi sometimes, but a small price to pay for all the intellect mixed with insults (or vice versa).
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/26/cx_da_0926wtc2.html
He losses money blowing them up.
I think the planners of the attack would have been satisfied with the aircraft crashes alone...a statement of some sort was clearly made for all to see.
Regarding insurance claims, surely the towers were written off as soon as the aircraft impacted? Old buildings, rendered structurallly unsound. Why go to the bother to do more damage?
I do not see the logic for anyone (whether a 'goodie' or 'badie') to go to an awful lot of covert activities involving hundreds of people, dangerous substances, high risk of being detected (especially with forums like this around!) without a meaningful motive.
I'm a fan of this thread (yes I admit I am sad/lonely!). Keep up the jolly banter.
I agree with Newt...too much repetiton of quotes/graphics, get 'wheel-finger' rsi sometimes, but a small price to pay for all the intellect mixed with insults (or vice versa).
QUOTE
Silverstein Loses World Trade Center Appeal
Dan Ackman, 09.26.03, 5:00 PM ET
NEW YORK - A federal appeals court in a ruling issued today, substantially affirmed the position taken by the insurance industry that Silverstein Properties, the leaseholder to the devastated World Trade Center, likely can claim no more than the $3.5 billion insurance policy limit...
...Larry Silverstein, president of Silverstein Properties, has said his actual losses on Sept. 11, 2001, amount to $8.2 billion, including $5.7 billion for the twin 110-story towers, retail property at the site and buildings 4 and 5, which were also destroyed.
Dan Ackman, 09.26.03, 5:00 PM ET
NEW YORK - A federal appeals court in a ruling issued today, substantially affirmed the position taken by the insurance industry that Silverstein Properties, the leaseholder to the devastated World Trade Center, likely can claim no more than the $3.5 billion insurance policy limit...
...Larry Silverstein, president of Silverstein Properties, has said his actual losses on Sept. 11, 2001, amount to $8.2 billion, including $5.7 billion for the twin 110-story towers, retail property at the site and buildings 4 and 5, which were also destroyed.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/26/cx_da_0926wtc2.html
He losses money blowing them up.
QUOTE (computer fogie+Mar 13 2006, 10:20 PM)
There was no "pyroclastic" cloud at the WTC sitebased on what I've learned about the meaning of the word. If you want to know what the term means, look up info on volcanoes. Pyroclastic flows are HOT.
But Hoffman states quite clearly that the dust cloud was at 1000 degrees. That would qualify as a pryoclastic cloud.
I agree thouigh, there was no "pyroclastic cloud" at the WTC . Hoffman is out to lunch on this one. He assumes that only heat could account for the dust cloud size then calculates the energy required to make a dust cloud of those dimensions and thus comes up with a pyroclastic cloud.
Given that there is no evidence in the vehicles and other objects that were in close proximity to the WTC of temps of 1000 degrees (Celcius IIRC, no matter , 1000 F is also twice the max temp of a common kitchen oven) his whole premise is shown to be invalid.
But Hoffman states quite clearly that the dust cloud was at 1000 degrees. That would qualify as a pryoclastic cloud.
I agree thouigh, there was no "pyroclastic cloud" at the WTC . Hoffman is out to lunch on this one. He assumes that only heat could account for the dust cloud size then calculates the energy required to make a dust cloud of those dimensions and thus comes up with a pyroclastic cloud.
Given that there is no evidence in the vehicles and other objects that were in close proximity to the WTC of temps of 1000 degrees (Celcius IIRC, no matter , 1000 F is also twice the max temp of a common kitchen oven) his whole premise is shown to be invalid.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 13 2006, 07:01 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 13 2006, 05:18 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 13 2006, 12:38 PM)
From what I understand they are not volitile because they need to mix with oxygen from the air.
I didn't mean "volatile" in a "fragile" sense, but that volatile is simply a measure of the ease and rapidity that a substance mixes with air. This is normally linked to their boiling point, which is why you don't want to heat volatile substances near flames.
By definition, thermobaric bombs require a fairly volatile fuel, physical dispersion is only so effective.
But assume that one can insure the bomb won't go off prematurely, you still haven't addressed how one could insure the weapon is placed NEAR the impact point so that when it goes off, it LOOKs like it is part of a NORMAL gravitational collapse.
Arthur
I cannot count the number of times I have asked how explosives could be placed near the impact floors of each building and be placed such that they did not go off prematurely with either the impact or the subsequent fires and also have their supposed remote control mechanisms intact not only on impact floors but also on all floors in which there were supposed explosives(above and below the impact zones)
To date there has been only silence on this.
Now , not only do some want explosives but they postulate a thermobaric bomb which, as you point out, would contain volatile fuels that would be very susceptible to heat.
Boggles the mind that anyone still holds to the CD theory at all much less is trying to make it even more complicated , complex and convoluted.
,,,,,,,,,, and still no takers on this question.
Not surprising
I didn't mean "volatile" in a "fragile" sense, but that volatile is simply a measure of the ease and rapidity that a substance mixes with air. This is normally linked to their boiling point, which is why you don't want to heat volatile substances near flames.
By definition, thermobaric bombs require a fairly volatile fuel, physical dispersion is only so effective.
But assume that one can insure the bomb won't go off prematurely, you still haven't addressed how one could insure the weapon is placed NEAR the impact point so that when it goes off, it LOOKs like it is part of a NORMAL gravitational collapse.
Arthur
I cannot count the number of times I have asked how explosives could be placed near the impact floors of each building and be placed such that they did not go off prematurely with either the impact or the subsequent fires and also have their supposed remote control mechanisms intact not only on impact floors but also on all floors in which there were supposed explosives(above and below the impact zones)
To date there has been only silence on this.
Now , not only do some want explosives but they postulate a thermobaric bomb which, as you point out, would contain volatile fuels that would be very susceptible to heat.
Boggles the mind that anyone still holds to the CD theory at all much less is trying to make it even more complicated , complex and convoluted.
,,,,,,,,,, and still no takers on this question.
Not surprising
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 13 2006, 06:40 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 13 2006, 02:27 PM)
You can post all the government deceptions you like to support the steel core columns, but photos don't lie and NONE show any steel core columns inside the core area.
Why are no steel core columns seen protruding from the core area in these photos?
There are Dozens upon Dozens of pictures of STEEL Columns in the debris pile and there are also pictures of the steel columns from the construction phase.
There so far are NO pictures of reinforced concrete being applied to core columns during construction on the towers. Sorry, your assertion that you saw it in a PBS documentary over a decade before the towers fell, is not sufficient evidence.
There are NO CLEAR pictures of the remains of Reinforced concrete encased Steel Columns.
There ARE some pictures of the very lowest floors that show steel columns that might have a concrete or stone facade, since they were EXPOSED in the lobby area.
The PICTURES from the collapse on the other hand, is pretty clear evidence of STEEL COLUMNS, and pretty poor evidence for reinforced concrete construction.
Arthur
Hmmmm, .......... you quote the photo of rebar, make no comment upon it then talk about steel columns in the debris.
Sounds to me like you have no evidence of any steel inside the core from anything but officially interested sources.
And, ................ you appear to be confused about what kind of core I assert stood.
The core that stood, what you see here,
was constructed from steel reinforced cast concrete in a tubular shape and there was only one per tower.
You lie, YID.
I and many others have attempted to answer this for you many times (and not only on this thread).
Just because you reject the answers, does not mean that it has not been addressed, or that there has been "only silence on this".
Go back and read the whole thread. Don't stand there making stooopid and false claims.
It is a stupid question to begin with, anyway.
How can anyone know 'for a fact' what goes through the minds of psycopaths, it only leads to philosophical speculation for both sides - hence there can never be a factual resolution of the question.
Now... you seem to have missed my post...
Where's the FIRES ?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73672
You lie, YID.
I and many others have attempted to answer this for you many times (and not only on this thread).
Just because you reject the answers, does not mean that it has not been addressed, or that there has been "only silence on this".
Go back and read the whole thread. Don't stand there making stooopid and false claims.
It is a stupid question to begin with, anyway.
How can anyone know 'for a fact' what goes through the minds of psycopaths, it only leads to philosophical speculation for both sides - hence there can never be a factual resolution of the question.
Now... you seem to have missed my post...
Where's the FIRES ?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73672
I saw that post with cropped photos cropping out the fire. Maybe you didn't see my reply...
RIGHT HERE...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire.htm
I don't frequent government conspiracy theorist websites. Perhaps you'd like to try posting a photo again of these alleged infernos. The first one you tried passing off was debunked as being nothing more than the jet fuel fireball burning off, and I showed the NIST photo where 4 minutes later there was nothing left of those kerosene fires.
No one says there were NO fires... but they are hardly what the government conspiracy theorists pretend they were.
The only real persistent fire was at the northeast corner... hardly sufficient to lead to global collapse.
Downloading a bunch of photos of the east face to your site and claiming that you have proved there were raging fires is pure horsepucky. I have already shown (by the NIST report statements themselves) how one of those 'fire pictures' was a temporary flare-up lasting only minutes and quite plausibly was initiated by an explosion on the 77th floor... (2 floors below the fire floors).
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73672
Quit beatin about the bush - let's see the photo you claim shows these mysterious hiding infernos.
I'll be back later to see how you do.
I don't frequent government conspiracy theorist websites. Perhaps you'd like to try posting a photo again of these alleged infernos. The first one you tried passing off was debunked as being nothing more than the jet fuel fireball burning off, and I showed the NIST photo where 4 minutes later there was nothing left of those kerosene fires.
No one says there were NO fires... but they are hardly what the government conspiracy theorists pretend they were.
The only real persistent fire was at the northeast corner... hardly sufficient to lead to global collapse.
Downloading a bunch of photos of the east face to your site and claiming that you have proved there were raging fires is pure horsepucky. I have already shown (by the NIST report statements themselves) how one of those 'fire pictures' was a temporary flare-up lasting only minutes and quite plausibly was initiated by an explosion on the 77th floor... (2 floors below the fire floors).
Quit beatin about the bush - let's see the photo you claim shows these mysterious hiding infernos.
Your just making yourself look like a fool. But then that's why people love clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire.htm
Anyone can see your full of shait. Heh!
WHERES THE THERMITE...
Right here...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
Why are no steel core columns seen protruding from the core area in these photos?
There are Dozens upon Dozens of pictures of STEEL Columns in the debris pile and there are also pictures of the steel columns from the construction phase.
There so far are NO pictures of reinforced concrete being applied to core columns during construction on the towers. Sorry, your assertion that you saw it in a PBS documentary over a decade before the towers fell, is not sufficient evidence.
There are NO CLEAR pictures of the remains of Reinforced concrete encased Steel Columns.
There ARE some pictures of the very lowest floors that show steel columns that might have a concrete or stone facade, since they were EXPOSED in the lobby area.
The PICTURES from the collapse on the other hand, is pretty clear evidence of STEEL COLUMNS, and pretty poor evidence for reinforced concrete construction.
Arthur
Hmmmm, .......... you quote the photo of rebar, make no comment upon it then talk about steel columns in the debris.
Sounds to me like you have no evidence of any steel inside the core from anything but officially interested sources.
And, ................ you appear to be confused about what kind of core I assert stood.
The core that stood, what you see here,
was constructed from steel reinforced cast concrete in a tubular shape and there was only one per tower.
More evidence for the amazing bellows...
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121608m.jpg
Seems to be less amazing with each passing day.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121608m.jpg
Seems to be less amazing with each passing day.
Spitzer Collects Endorsements And Heckles
By DAVID LOMBINO - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 13, 2006
The state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, picked up several endorsements from key Manhattan Democrats yesterday in his race for governor even as he fended off an angry verbal attack by a heckler at an Upper West Side synagogue ... demanding to know why the attorney general has not opened an independent investigation into the events of September 11, 2001. ...
http://www.nysun.com/article/29002
By DAVID LOMBINO - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 13, 2006
The state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, picked up several endorsements from key Manhattan Democrats yesterday in his race for governor even as he fended off an angry verbal attack by a heckler at an Upper West Side synagogue ... demanding to know why the attorney general has not opened an independent investigation into the events of September 11, 2001. ...
http://www.nysun.com/article/29002
QUOTE (Non Sense+Mar 13 2006, 11:53 PM)
More evidence for the amazing bellows...
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121608m.jpg
Seems to be less amazing with each passing day.
Not at all...
Simple air passages do not a bellows make. You need forced air to raise steel to molten temperatures.
This is what you are failing to address, and simply coming up with 'possible' ways for air to reach underground fires just don't wash...
Stick with your Amazing Bouncing Truck Bellows Theory
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121608m.jpg
Seems to be less amazing with each passing day.
Not at all...
Simple air passages do not a bellows make. You need forced air to raise steel to molten temperatures.
This is what you are failing to address, and simply coming up with 'possible' ways for air to reach underground fires just don't wash...
Stick with your Amazing Bouncing Truck Bellows Theory
QUOTE
the YID is Back
I cannot count the number of times I have asked how explosives could be placed near the impact floors of each building and be placed such that they did not go off prematurely with either the impact or the subsequent fires and also have their supposed remote control mechanisms intact not only on impact floors but also on all floors in which there were supposed explosives(above and below the impact zones)
To date there has been only silence on this.
I cannot count the number of times I have asked how explosives could be placed near the impact floors of each building and be placed such that they did not go off prematurely with either the impact or the subsequent fires and also have their supposed remote control mechanisms intact not only on impact floors but also on all floors in which there were supposed explosives(above and below the impact zones)
To date there has been only silence on this.
You lie, YID.
I and many others have attempted to answer this for you many times (and not only on this thread).
Just because you reject the answers, does not mean that it has not been addressed, or that there has been "only silence on this".
Go back and read the whole thread. Don't stand there making stooopid and false claims.
It is a stupid question to begin with, anyway.
How can anyone know 'for a fact' what goes through the minds of psycopaths, it only leads to philosophical speculation for both sides - hence there can never be a factual resolution of the question.
Now... you seem to have missed my post...
Where's the FIRES ?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73672
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 13 2006, 06:58 PM)
Here and there of course.
A
Hmmmm. Must be mostly "there", not "here".
A
Hmmmm. Must be mostly "there", not "here".
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 13 2006, 07:44 PM)
QUOTE
the YID is Back
I cannot count the number of times I have asked how explosives could be placed near the impact floors of each building and be placed such that they did not go off prematurely with either the impact or the subsequent fires and also have their supposed remote control mechanisms intact not only on impact floors but also on all floors in which there were supposed explosives(above and below the impact zones)
To date there has been only silence on this.
I cannot count the number of times I have asked how explosives could be placed near the impact floors of each building and be placed such that they did not go off prematurely with either the impact or the subsequent fires and also have their supposed remote control mechanisms intact not only on impact floors but also on all floors in which there were supposed explosives(above and below the impact zones)
To date there has been only silence on this.
You lie, YID.
I and many others have attempted to answer this for you many times (and not only on this thread).
Just because you reject the answers, does not mean that it has not been addressed, or that there has been "only silence on this".
Go back and read the whole thread. Don't stand there making stooopid and false claims.
It is a stupid question to begin with, anyway.
How can anyone know 'for a fact' what goes through the minds of psycopaths, it only leads to philosophical speculation for both sides - hence there can never be a factual resolution of the question.
Now... you seem to have missed my post...
Where's the FIRES ?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73672
I saw that post with cropped photos cropping out the fire. Maybe you didn't see my reply...
RIGHT HERE...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire.htm
QUOTE
by Non Sense
I saw that post with cropped photos cropping out the fire. Maybe you didn't see my reply...
RIGHT HERE...
I saw that post with cropped photos cropping out the fire. Maybe you didn't see my reply...
RIGHT HERE...
I don't frequent government conspiracy theorist websites. Perhaps you'd like to try posting a photo again of these alleged infernos. The first one you tried passing off was debunked as being nothing more than the jet fuel fireball burning off, and I showed the NIST photo where 4 minutes later there was nothing left of those kerosene fires.
No one says there were NO fires... but they are hardly what the government conspiracy theorists pretend they were.
The only real persistent fire was at the northeast corner... hardly sufficient to lead to global collapse.
Downloading a bunch of photos of the east face to your site and claiming that you have proved there were raging fires is pure horsepucky. I have already shown (by the NIST report statements themselves) how one of those 'fire pictures' was a temporary flare-up lasting only minutes and quite plausibly was initiated by an explosion on the 77th floor... (2 floors below the fire floors).
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73672
Quit beatin about the bush - let's see the photo you claim shows these mysterious hiding infernos.
I'll be back later to see how you do.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 14 2006, 01:24 AM)
QUOTE
by Non Sense
I saw that post with cropped photos cropping out the fire. Maybe you didn't see my reply...
RIGHT HERE...
I saw that post with cropped photos cropping out the fire. Maybe you didn't see my reply...
RIGHT HERE...
I don't frequent government conspiracy theorist websites. Perhaps you'd like to try posting a photo again of these alleged infernos. The first one you tried passing off was debunked as being nothing more than the jet fuel fireball burning off, and I showed the NIST photo where 4 minutes later there was nothing left of those kerosene fires.
No one says there were NO fires... but they are hardly what the government conspiracy theorists pretend they were.
The only real persistent fire was at the northeast corner... hardly sufficient to lead to global collapse.
Downloading a bunch of photos of the east face to your site and claiming that you have proved there were raging fires is pure horsepucky. I have already shown (by the NIST report statements themselves) how one of those 'fire pictures' was a temporary flare-up lasting only minutes and quite plausibly was initiated by an explosion on the 77th floor... (2 floors below the fire floors).
Quit beatin about the bush - let's see the photo you claim shows these mysterious hiding infernos.
Your just making yourself look like a fool. But then that's why people love clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire.htm
Anyone can see your full of shait. Heh!
WHERES THE THERMITE...
Right here...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
QUOTE (computer fogie+Mar 13 2006, 10:20 PM)
There was no "pyroclastic" cloud at the WTC sitebased on what I've learned about the meaning of the word. If you want to know what the term means, look up info on volcanoes. Pyroclastic flows are HOT.
I think your problem is 1 dimensional thinking. In 3 dimensions, we have all kinds of chaotic events occuring, not taken account of in your simplistic cogitation.
What you need is 3 dimensional, chaotic thinking!!
Then, you can seriously consider how the PRINCIPLES of physics would allow for, just to give an example, Amazing Bellows which can stoke subterranean fires for weeks on end, such that metal becomes white hot!
If you expand your thinking further, to say, 4 dimensional thinking, then clearly Air conditioned Amazing Bellows are completely possible. Have you never seen a photo of a housing after a hurricane has swept through? You could have 100 surrounding houses leveled, and 1 left, standing straight as an arrow!! The same with forests!!
These are the PRINCIPLES of PHYSICS, which you obviously don't understand, mate!!
If you dispute these PRINCIPLES, then go ahead and disprove them!!! But I suggest you get an education first in PHYSICS! 400 pages of your coincidence theories, and you STILL haven't proven ANYTHING!!
Ciao!!
I think your problem is 1 dimensional thinking. In 3 dimensions, we have all kinds of chaotic events occuring, not taken account of in your simplistic cogitation.
What you need is 3 dimensional, chaotic thinking!!
Then, you can seriously consider how the PRINCIPLES of physics would allow for, just to give an example, Amazing Bellows which can stoke subterranean fires for weeks on end, such that metal becomes white hot!
If you expand your thinking further, to say, 4 dimensional thinking, then clearly Air conditioned Amazing Bellows are completely possible. Have you never seen a photo of a housing after a hurricane has swept through? You could have 100 surrounding houses leveled, and 1 left, standing straight as an arrow!! The same with forests!!
These are the PRINCIPLES of PHYSICS, which you obviously don't understand, mate!!
If you dispute these PRINCIPLES, then go ahead and disprove them!!! But I suggest you get an education first in PHYSICS! 400 pages of your coincidence theories, and you STILL haven't proven ANYTHING!!
Ciao!!
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 12 2006, 08:28 PM)
Peer reviewd studies supporting collapse by fire..
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm
Out of curiosity I contacted Dr. Lu, one of the authors of this paper, in request of the simulated collapse times for the towers. He reported back that those values are:
North Tower: 1:53
South Tower: 1:32
That's minutes and seconds, obviously. I have a hard time believing that the most wildly optimistic case (fracture strain = 0.5%) yielding times like these can be in support of gravitational collapse.
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm
Out of curiosity I contacted Dr. Lu, one of the authors of this paper, in request of the simulated collapse times for the towers. He reported back that those values are:
North Tower: 1:53
South Tower: 1:32
That's minutes and seconds, obviously. I have a hard time believing that the most wildly optimistic case (fracture strain = 0.5%) yielding times like these can be in support of gravitational collapse.
That last guest post was mine, I thought I was logged in.
That was GREAT, metamars
Now back to 'Non Sense'...
This might be evidence of thermite... Do you have this one on your site 'Non Sense' ?
NIST Figure 9-45
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig945.jpg
A closer look...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/040thermZM.jpg
Even NIST admits this is burning metal... (no, I don't mean melting metal... I mean burning metal)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
The above photo was snapped at 9:37 am ... only a few minutes before we observe molten metal pouring from this corner...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
"Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"... check out the government conspiracy theorist website, then run along home.
Now back to 'Non Sense'...
This might be evidence of thermite... Do you have this one on your site 'Non Sense' ?
NIST Figure 9-45
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig945.jpg
A closer look...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/040thermZM.jpg
Even NIST admits this is burning metal... (no, I don't mean melting metal... I mean burning metal)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
The above photo was snapped at 9:37 am ... only a few minutes before we observe molten metal pouring from this corner...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
"Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"... check out the government conspiracy theorist website, then run along home.
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 13 2006, 10:54 PM)
Would anyone know of a plausable motive to collapse the buildings with explosives?
I think the planners of the attack would have been satisfied with the aircraft crashes alone...a statement of some sort was clearly made for all to see.
Regarding insurance claims, surely the towers were written off as soon as the aircraft impacted? Old buildings, rendered structurallly unsound. Why go to the bother to do more damage?
I do not see the logic for anyone (whether a 'goodie' or 'badie') to go to an awful lot of covert activities involving hundreds of people, dangerous substances, high risk of being detected (especially with forums like this around!) without a meaningful motive.
I'm a fan of this thread (yes I admit I am sad/lonely!). Keep up the jolly banter.
I agree with Newt...too much repetiton of quotes/graphics, get 'wheel-finger' rsi sometimes, but a small price to pay for all the intellect mixed with insults (or vice versa).
The towers were built without public support, for the large part. Rockefeller pushed them. The asbestos in them made them a liability. They were never profitable. There was a motive to get rid of them, and to do so in a way where containing the asbestos was not a burden was a factor.
There were other motives, PNAC and the petroleum industry linked to middle eastern concerns. Check the history on BCCI. The towers were not structurally unsound although they were built to demolish.
There is no other way to create the event we saw. Utterly impossible, even with an ordinary controlled demolition. You would never get the placement and distribution as well as must have been done,
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
I think the planners of the attack would have been satisfied with the aircraft crashes alone...a statement of some sort was clearly made for all to see.
Regarding insurance claims, surely the towers were written off as soon as the aircraft impacted? Old buildings, rendered structurallly unsound. Why go to the bother to do more damage?
I do not see the logic for anyone (whether a 'goodie' or 'badie') to go to an awful lot of covert activities involving hundreds of people, dangerous substances, high risk of being detected (especially with forums like this around!) without a meaningful motive.
I'm a fan of this thread (yes I admit I am sad/lonely!). Keep up the jolly banter.
I agree with Newt...too much repetiton of quotes/graphics, get 'wheel-finger' rsi sometimes, but a small price to pay for all the intellect mixed with insults (or vice versa).
The towers were built without public support, for the large part. Rockefeller pushed them. The asbestos in them made them a liability. They were never profitable. There was a motive to get rid of them, and to do so in a way where containing the asbestos was not a burden was a factor.
There were other motives, PNAC and the petroleum industry linked to middle eastern concerns. Check the history on BCCI. The towers were not structurally unsound although they were built to demolish.
There is no other way to create the event we saw. Utterly impossible, even with an ordinary controlled demolition. You would never get the placement and distribution as well as must have been done,
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 14 2006, 02:36 AM)
That was GREAT, metamars
Now back to 'Non Sense'...
This might be evidence of thermite... Do you have this one on your site 'Non Sense' ?
NIST Figure 9-45
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig945.jpg
A closer look...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/040thermZM.jpg
Even NIST admits this is burning metal... (no, I don't mean melting metal... I mean burning metal)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
The above photo was snapped at 9:37 am ... only a few minutes before we observe molten metal pouring from this corner...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
"Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"... check out the government conspiracy theorist website, then run along home.
Aw, shucks, thanks, but spewing drivel is really easy. Oops, I meant EASY!!!
Well, time for the beach!!
Ciao!!
Now back to 'Non Sense'...
This might be evidence of thermite... Do you have this one on your site 'Non Sense' ?
NIST Figure 9-45
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig945.jpg
A closer look...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/040thermZM.jpg
Even NIST admits this is burning metal... (no, I don't mean melting metal... I mean burning metal)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
The above photo was snapped at 9:37 am ... only a few minutes before we observe molten metal pouring from this corner...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
"Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"... check out the government conspiracy theorist website, then run along home.
Aw, shucks, thanks, but spewing drivel is really easy. Oops, I meant EASY!!!
Well, time for the beach!!
Ciao!!
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 14 2006, 02:26 AM)
QUOTE (computer fogie+Mar 13 2006, 10:20 PM)
There was no "pyroclastic" cloud at the WTC sitebased on what I've learned about the meaning of the word. If you want to know what the term means, look up info on volcanoes. Pyroclastic flows are HOT.
I think your problem is 1 dimensional thinking. In 3 dimensions, we have all kinds of chaotic events occuring, not taken account of in your simplistic cogitation.
What you need is 3 dimensional, chaotic thinking!!
Then, you can seriously consider how the PRINCIPLES of physics would allow for, just to give an example, Amazing Bellows which can stoke subterranean fires for weeks on end, such that metal becomes white hot!
If you expand your thinking further, to say, 4 dimensional thinking, then clearly Air conditioned Amazing Bellows are completely possible. Have you never seen a photo of a housing after a hurricane has swept through? You could have 100 surrounding houses leveled, and 1 left, standing straight as an arrow!! The same with forests!!
These are the PRINCIPLES of PHYSICS, which you obviously don't understand, mate!!
If you dispute these PRINCIPLES, then go ahead and disprove them!!! But I suggest you get an education first in PHYSICS! 400 pages of your coincidence theories, and you STILL haven't proven ANYTHING!!
Ciao!!
that was nearly perfect.
'coincidence theory' on hyper-steroids from outer space, even, lol!
say, the whole general strain issue seems to be the 'plastic hinge' which decides whether or not the towers will fall in a chain sequence or not(timing aside).
agreed from both sides?
and once again, the lower limit for a pyroclastic flow, according to wiki(i don't know) is 100 degrees C, just for the record.
now does this mean that the SOURCE of the heat which causes the outward expansion and billowing of the hot cloud, or does it mean the temperature of the cloud itself? an important distinction, in my IGNORANT opinion.
I think your problem is 1 dimensional thinking. In 3 dimensions, we have all kinds of chaotic events occuring, not taken account of in your simplistic cogitation.
What you need is 3 dimensional, chaotic thinking!!
Then, you can seriously consider how the PRINCIPLES of physics would allow for, just to give an example, Amazing Bellows which can stoke subterranean fires for weeks on end, such that metal becomes white hot!
If you expand your thinking further, to say, 4 dimensional thinking, then clearly Air conditioned Amazing Bellows are completely possible. Have you never seen a photo of a housing after a hurricane has swept through? You could have 100 surrounding houses leveled, and 1 left, standing straight as an arrow!! The same with forests!!
These are the PRINCIPLES of PHYSICS, which you obviously don't understand, mate!!
If you dispute these PRINCIPLES, then go ahead and disprove them!!! But I suggest you get an education first in PHYSICS! 400 pages of your coincidence theories, and you STILL haven't proven ANYTHING!!
Ciao!!
that was nearly perfect.
'coincidence theory' on hyper-steroids from outer space, even, lol!
say, the whole general strain issue seems to be the 'plastic hinge' which decides whether or not the towers will fall in a chain sequence or not(timing aside).
agreed from both sides?
and once again, the lower limit for a pyroclastic flow, according to wiki(i don't know) is 100 degrees C, just for the record.
now does this mean that the SOURCE of the heat which causes the outward expansion and billowing of the hot cloud, or does it mean the temperature of the cloud itself? an important distinction, in my IGNORANT opinion.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 14 2006, 02:26 AM)
QUOTE (computer fogie+Mar 13 2006, 10:20 PM)
There was no "pyroclastic" cloud at the WTC sitebased on what I've learned about the meaning of the word. If you want to know what the term means, look up info on volcanoes. Pyroclastic flows are HOT.
I think your problem is 1 dimensional thinking. In 3 dimensions, we have all kinds of chaotic events occuring, not taken account of in your simplistic cogitation.
What you need is 3 dimensional, chaotic thinking!!
Then, you can seriously consider how the PRINCIPLES of physics would allow for, just to give an example, Amazing Bellows which can stoke subterranean fires for weeks on end, such that metal becomes white hot!
If you expand your thinking further, to say, 4 dimensional thinking, then clearly Air conditioned Amazing Bellows are completely possible. Have you never seen a photo of a housing after a hurricane has swept through? You could have 100 surrounding houses leveled, and 1 left, standing straight as an arrow!! The same with forests!!
These are the PRINCIPLES of PHYSICS, which you obviously don't understand, mate!!
If you dispute these PRINCIPLES, then go ahead and disprove them!!! But I suggest you get an education first in PHYSICS! 400 pages of your coincidence theories, and you STILL haven't proven ANYTHING!!
Ciao!!
Translation:
You're right CF. I need to take the focus away from my moronic mentors pyroclastic flow theory by character assassination and obfuscation. I hope this works. Wish me luck Foxx. I'm gonna need it...
Lets see, which straw man should I use... I know! I'll poke fun at CS telling me I have a one dimentional mind. This way the next time he catches me saying something simple minded I can bring this back as a running gag. Then theres the standard "Amazing bellows" joke. Yeah, I just hope nobody brings up the...
IMPOSSIBLE PYROCLASTIC FLOW CRAP I BELIEVE IN.
HEHEHE!!!
You lie, YID.
I and many others have attempted to answer this for you many times (and not only on this thread).
Just because you reject the answers, does not mean that it has not been addressed, or that there has been "only silence on this".
Go back and read the whole thread. Don't stand there making stooopid and false claims.
It is a stupid question to begin with, anyway.
How can anyone know 'for a fact' what goes through the minds of psycopaths, it only leads to philosophical speculation for both sides - hence there can never be a factual resolution of the question.
I sit at the computer Foxx, do you stand?? Que sera sera.
What psycopaths Foxx?? The ones with the ability to construct a complex and complicated method of planting explosives in several buildings in such a way as to have them conveniently near the place where an aircraft will impact, causeing immediate physical damage and large scale fires without having those explosives go off prematurely AND have their control systems also remain intact so as to allow detonation when called for? Those guys Foxx?
If so then yes they very well might be psycopaths if they existed. But that is not even close to the issue I asked about. I asked how it was done, not what was on the minds of those who did it.
If you have answered or "many others have attempted to answer " this I must have missed it. I therefore ask for one, perhaps, in your humble opinion, the best example of such an answer. I truly cannot recall any substantive ( frankly I don't recall any at all) reply to this question.
Now the question is not even about the generic 'explosive' but is focused on thermobaric bombs which contain volatile (and I know you know the definition of 'volatile' that is applicable in this case) fuels that would be heat sensitive in the extreme.
As for philosphical speculation Foxx, you seem quite willing to engage in such. Witness your continued attempts to prove that this or that poster is a paid shill or that any two posters are the same person. You also do not let facts get in the way of your dead set assumption of a controlled demolition of three WTC buildings. Facts such as fire fighters who all head UP the towers but nary a word about any that head DOWN to the levels at which W.R. says a huge explosion took place, or that in order to do what Hoffman says happened everything (note the word "everything") near the towers should look very much like it actually was enveloped by a 1000 degree 'pyroclastic cloud" and that if the "energy deficit" that Hoffman claims to have calculated is explained by planted explosives that it would require an enormous amount of TNT (or C4) equivalent, or that a thermobaric device, though a few of them might supply such explosive power it would neccessarily be concentrated in the proximity of their locations and would have been quite obvious.
I think your problem is 1 dimensional thinking. In 3 dimensions, we have all kinds of chaotic events occuring, not taken account of in your simplistic cogitation.
What you need is 3 dimensional, chaotic thinking!!
Then, you can seriously consider how the PRINCIPLES of physics would allow for, just to give an example, Amazing Bellows which can stoke subterranean fires for weeks on end, such that metal becomes white hot!
If you expand your thinking further, to say, 4 dimensional thinking, then clearly Air conditioned Amazing Bellows are completely possible. Have you never seen a photo of a housing after a hurricane has swept through? You could have 100 surrounding houses leveled, and 1 left, standing straight as an arrow!! The same with forests!!
These are the PRINCIPLES of PHYSICS, which you obviously don't understand, mate!!
If you dispute these PRINCIPLES, then go ahead and disprove them!!! But I suggest you get an education first in PHYSICS! 400 pages of your coincidence theories, and you STILL haven't proven ANYTHING!!
Ciao!!
Translation:
You're right CF. I need to take the focus away from my moronic mentors pyroclastic flow theory by character assassination and obfuscation. I hope this works. Wish me luck Foxx. I'm gonna need it...
Lets see, which straw man should I use... I know! I'll poke fun at CS telling me I have a one dimentional mind. This way the next time he catches me saying something simple minded I can bring this back as a running gag. Then theres the standard "Amazing bellows" joke. Yeah, I just hope nobody brings up the...
IMPOSSIBLE PYROCLASTIC FLOW CRAP I BELIEVE IN.
HEHEHE!!!
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 14 2006, 02:36 AM)
That was GREAT, metamars
Now back to 'Non Sense'...
This might be evidence of thermite... Do you have this one on your site 'Non Sense' ?
NIST Figure 9-45
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig945.jpg
A closer look...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/040thermZM.jpg
Even NIST admits this is burning metal... (no, I don't mean melting metal... I mean burning metal)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
The above photo was snapped at 9:37 am ... only a few minutes before we observe molten metal pouring from this corner...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
"Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"
"Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"
You got that right.. Heh!
Now back to 'Non Sense'...
This might be evidence of thermite... Do you have this one on your site 'Non Sense' ?
NIST Figure 9-45
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig945.jpg
A closer look...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/040thermZM.jpg
Even NIST admits this is burning metal... (no, I don't mean melting metal... I mean burning metal)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
The above photo was snapped at 9:37 am ... only a few minutes before we observe molten metal pouring from this corner...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet+9%2F11
"Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"
"Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"
You got that right.. Heh!
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 14 2006, 12:44 AM)
QUOTE
the YID is Back
I cannot count the number of times I have asked how explosives could be placed near the impact floors of each building and be placed such that they did not go off prematurely with either the impact or the subsequent fires and also have their supposed remote control mechanisms intact not only on impact floors but also on all floors in which there were supposed explosives(above and below the impact zones)
To date there has been only silence on this.
I cannot count the number of times I have asked how explosives could be placed near the impact floors of each building and be placed such that they did not go off prematurely with either the impact or the subsequent fires and also have their supposed remote control mechanisms intact not only on impact floors but also on all floors in which there were supposed explosives(above and below the impact zones)
To date there has been only silence on this.
You lie, YID.
I and many others have attempted to answer this for you many times (and not only on this thread).
Just because you reject the answers, does not mean that it has not been addressed, or that there has been "only silence on this".
Go back and read the whole thread. Don't stand there making stooopid and false claims.
It is a stupid question to begin with, anyway.
How can anyone know 'for a fact' what goes through the minds of psycopaths, it only leads to philosophical speculation for both sides - hence there can never be a factual resolution of the question.
I sit at the computer Foxx, do you stand?? Que sera sera.
What psycopaths Foxx?? The ones with the ability to construct a complex and complicated method of planting explosives in several buildings in such a way as to have them conveniently near the place where an aircraft will impact, causeing immediate physical damage and large scale fires without having those explosives go off prematurely AND have their control systems also remain intact so as to allow detonation when called for? Those guys Foxx?
If so then yes they very well might be psycopaths if they existed. But that is not even close to the issue I asked about. I asked how it was done, not what was on the minds of those who did it.
If you have answered or "many others have attempted to answer " this I must have missed it. I therefore ask for one, perhaps, in your humble opinion, the best example of such an answer. I truly cannot recall any substantive ( frankly I don't recall any at all) reply to this question.
Now the question is not even about the generic 'explosive' but is focused on thermobaric bombs which contain volatile (and I know you know the definition of 'volatile' that is applicable in this case) fuels that would be heat sensitive in the extreme.
As for philosphical speculation Foxx, you seem quite willing to engage in such. Witness your continued attempts to prove that this or that poster is a paid shill or that any two posters are the same person. You also do not let facts get in the way of your dead set assumption of a controlled demolition of three WTC buildings. Facts such as fire fighters who all head UP the towers but nary a word about any that head DOWN to the levels at which W.R. says a huge explosion took place, or that in order to do what Hoffman says happened everything (note the word "everything") near the towers should look very much like it actually was enveloped by a 1000 degree 'pyroclastic cloud" and that if the "energy deficit" that Hoffman claims to have calculated is explained by planted explosives that it would require an enormous amount of TNT (or C4) equivalent, or that a thermobaric device, though a few of them might supply such explosive power it would neccessarily be concentrated in the proximity of their locations and would have been quite obvious.
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 14 2006, 02:34 AM)
That last guest post was mine, I thought I was logged in.
Do you have E-mail? I'd like to verify please.
Do you have E-mail? I'd like to verify please.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 14 2006, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 14 2006, 02:26 AM)
QUOTE (computer fogie+Mar 13 2006, 10:20 PM)
There was no "pyroclastic" cloud at the WTC sitebased on what I've learned about the meaning of the word. If you want to know what the term means, look up info on volcanoes. Pyroclastic flows are HOT.
I think your problem is 1 dimensional thinking. In 3 dimensions, we have all kinds of chaotic events occuring, not taken account of in your simplistic cogitation.
What you need is 3 dimensional, chaotic thinking!!
Then, you can seriously consider how the PRINCIPLES of physics would allow for, just to give an example, Amazing Bellows which can stoke subterranean fires for weeks on end, such that metal becomes white hot!
If you expand your thinking further, to say, 4 dimensional thinking, then clearly Air conditioned Amazing Bellows are completely possible. Have you never seen a photo of a housing after a hurricane has swept through? You could have 100 surrounding houses leveled, and 1 left, standing straight as an arrow!! The same with forests!!
These are the PRINCIPLES of PHYSICS, which you obviously don't understand, mate!!
If you dispute these PRINCIPLES, then go ahead and disprove them!!! But I suggest you get an education first in PHYSICS! 400 pages of your coincidence theories, and you STILL haven't proven ANYTHING!!
Ciao!!
that was nearly perfect.
'coincidence theory' on hyper-steroids from outer space, even, lol!
say, the whole general strain issue seems to be the 'plastic hinge' which decides whether or not the towers will fall in a chain sequence or not(timing aside).
agreed from both sides?
and once again, the lower limit for a pyroclastic flow, according to wiki(i don't know) is 100 degrees C, just for the record.
now does this mean that the SOURCE of the heat which causes the outward expansion and billowing of the hot cloud, or does it mean the temperature of the cloud itself? an important distinction, in my IGNORANT opinion.
Hoffman does a crude calculation, though he has mentioned that temperatures near Ground Zero were not as extreme as his "target temperature" of about 1000K.
I don't think the question should be whether Hoffman's use of the term "pyroclastic flow" needs to be suitable for volcanologists, but what exactly the physics of it all tells us. Whining about the use of the term "pyroclastic flow" for the most part impresses me not at all, but ultimately only the physics matters. I'm sure that if Hoffman can prove the key intent of his thesis - viz., a massive energy deficit - in a manner acceptable to all, then he will be happy to use a different terminology. Certainly, that is my attitude.
His pope-ish critics pretend that if temperatures don't closely match Hoffman's crude estimate, then that is the end of the story, but it is not. I just checked Hoffman's web site, and he is working on a revision of his paper, to adress critiques that he has received. I get the sense that it will be significantly more solid, but still not incorporate fluid hydrodynamics and God knows what else you need to get a result that will be satisfactory to even honest skeptics.
Convincing honest skeptics is a noble goal, of course, and every attempt should be made along those lines, even if it should turn out that such an attempt proves that Hoffman was essentially wrong.
I am working on the calculation of an elaboration of Hoffman that I sketched out recently on this thread, and hopefully will post it soon.... The idea is to get a better idea how rapidly temperature will fall off with distance. My crude results will in no way obviate the need for a more realistic analysis, no matter how it turns out.
Stay tuned.
I think your problem is 1 dimensional thinking. In 3 dimensions, we have all kinds of chaotic events occuring, not taken account of in your simplistic cogitation.
What you need is 3 dimensional, chaotic thinking!!
Then, you can seriously consider how the PRINCIPLES of physics would allow for, just to give an example, Amazing Bellows which can stoke subterranean fires for weeks on end, such that metal becomes white hot!
If you expand your thinking further, to say, 4 dimensional thinking, then clearly Air conditioned Amazing Bellows are completely possible. Have you never seen a photo of a housing after a hurricane has swept through? You could have 100 surrounding houses leveled, and 1 left, standing straight as an arrow!! The same with forests!!
These are the PRINCIPLES of PHYSICS, which you obviously don't understand, mate!!
If you dispute these PRINCIPLES, then go ahead and disprove them!!! But I suggest you get an education first in PHYSICS! 400 pages of your coincidence theories, and you STILL haven't proven ANYTHING!!
Ciao!!
that was nearly perfect.
'coincidence theory' on hyper-steroids from outer space, even, lol!
say, the whole general strain issue seems to be the 'plastic hinge' which decides whether or not the towers will fall in a chain sequence or not(timing aside).
agreed from both sides?
and once again, the lower limit for a pyroclastic flow, according to wiki(i don't know) is 100 degrees C, just for the record.
now does this mean that the SOURCE of the heat which causes the outward expansion and billowing of the hot cloud, or does it mean the temperature of the cloud itself? an important distinction, in my IGNORANT opinion.
Hoffman does a crude calculation, though he has mentioned that temperatures near Ground Zero were not as extreme as his "target temperature" of about 1000K.
I don't think the question should be whether Hoffman's use of the term "pyroclastic flow" needs to be suitable for volcanologists, but what exactly the physics of it all tells us. Whining about the use of the term "pyroclastic flow" for the most part impresses me not at all, but ultimately only the physics matters. I'm sure that if Hoffman can prove the key intent of his thesis - viz., a massive energy deficit - in a manner acceptable to all, then he will be happy to use a different terminology. Certainly, that is my attitude.
His pope-ish critics pretend that if temperatures don't closely match Hoffman's crude estimate, then that is the end of the story, but it is not. I just checked Hoffman's web site, and he is working on a revision of his paper, to adress critiques that he has received. I get the sense that it will be significantly more solid, but still not incorporate fluid hydrodynamics and God knows what else you need to get a result that will be satisfactory to even honest skeptics.
Convincing honest skeptics is a noble goal, of course, and every attempt should be made along those lines, even if it should turn out that such an attempt proves that Hoffman was essentially wrong.
I am working on the calculation of an elaboration of Hoffman that I sketched out recently on this thread, and hopefully will post it soon.... The idea is to get a better idea how rapidly temperature will fall off with distance. My crude results will in no way obviate the need for a more realistic analysis, no matter how it turns out.
Stay tuned.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 13 2006, 06:21 PM)
But Hoffman states quite clearly that the dust cloud was at 1000 degrees. That would qualify as a pryoclastic cloud.
I agree thouigh, there was no "pyroclastic cloud" at the WTC . Hoffman is out to lunch on this one. He assumes that only heat could account for the dust cloud size then calculates the energy required to make a dust cloud of those dimensions and thus comes up with a pyroclastic cloud.
Given that there is no evidence in the vehicles and other objects that were in close proximity to the WTC of temps of 1000 degrees (Celcius IIRC, no matter , 1000 F is also twice the max temp of a common kitchen oven) his whole premise is shown to be invalid.
I didn't know the cloud was 1000F, if that's true. That sounds like what I understand "pyroclastic" to mean.
I agree it's hard to see how anything close to 1000F could have possibly been achieved in the cloud of debris.
I agree thouigh, there was no "pyroclastic cloud" at the WTC . Hoffman is out to lunch on this one. He assumes that only heat could account for the dust cloud size then calculates the energy required to make a dust cloud of those dimensions and thus comes up with a pyroclastic cloud.
Given that there is no evidence in the vehicles and other objects that were in close proximity to the WTC of temps of 1000 degrees (Celcius IIRC, no matter , 1000 F is also twice the max temp of a common kitchen oven) his whole premise is shown to be invalid.
I didn't know the cloud was 1000F, if that's true. That sounds like what I understand "pyroclastic" to mean.
I agree it's hard to see how anything close to 1000F could have possibly been achieved in the cloud of debris.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 14 2006, 04:11 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 14 2006, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 14 2006, 02:26 AM)
QUOTE (computer fogie+Mar 13 2006, 10:20 PM)
There was no "pyroclastic" cloud at the WTC sitebased on what I've learned about the meaning of the word. If you want to know what the term means, look up info on volcanoes. Pyroclastic flows are HOT.
I think your problem is 1 dimensional thinking. In 3 dimensions, we have all kinds of chaotic events occuring, not taken account of in your simplistic cogitation.
What you need is 3 dimensional, chaotic thinking!!
Then, you can seriously consider how the PRINCIPLES of physics would allow for, just to give an example, Amazing Bellows which can stoke subterranean fires for weeks on end, such that metal becomes white hot!
If you expand your thinking further, to say, 4 dimensional thinking, then clearly Air conditioned Amazing Bellows are completely possible. Have you never seen a photo of a housing after a hurricane has swept through? You could have 100 surrounding houses leveled, and 1 left, standing straight as an arrow!! The same with forests!!
These are the PRINCIPLES of PHYSICS, which you obviously don't understand, mate!!
If you dispute these PRINCIPLES, then go ahead and disprove them!!! But I suggest you get an education first in PHYSICS! 400 pages of your coincidence theories, and you STILL haven't proven ANYTHING!!
Ciao!!
that was nearly perfect.
'coincidence theory' on hyper-steroids from outer space, even, lol!
say, the whole general strain issue seems to be the 'plastic hinge' which decides whether or not the towers will fall in a chain sequence or not(timing aside).
agreed from both sides?
and once again, the lower limit for a pyroclastic flow, according to wiki(i don't know) is 100 degrees C, just for the record.
now does this mean that the SOURCE of the heat which causes the outward expansion and billowing of the hot cloud, or does it mean the temperature of the cloud itself? an important distinction, in my IGNORANT opinion.
Hoffman does a crude calculation, though he has mentioned that temperatures near Ground Zero were not as extreme as his "target temperature" of about 1000K.
I don't think the question should be whether Hoffman's use of the term "pyroclastic flow" needs to be suitable for volcanologists, but what exactly the physics of it all tells us. Whining about the use of the term "pyroclastic flow" for the most part impresses me not at all, but ultimately only the physics matters. I'm sure that if Hoffman can prove the key intent of his thesis - viz., a massive energy deficit - in a manner acceptable to all, then he will be happy to use a different terminology. Certainly, that is my attitude.
His pope-ish critics pretend that if temperatures don't closely match Hoffman's crude estimate, then that is the end of the story, but it is not. I just checked Hoffman's web site, and he is working on a revision of his paper, to adress critiques that he has received. I get the sense that it will be significantly more solid, but still not incorporate fluid hydrodynamics and God knows what else you need to get a result that will be satisfactory to even honest skeptics.
Convincing honest skeptics is a noble goal, of course, and every attempt should be made along those lines, even if it should turn out that such an attempt proves that Hoffman was essentially wrong.
I am working on the calculation of an elaboration of Hoffman that I sketched out recently on this thread, and hopefully will post it soon.... The idea is to get a better idea how rapidly temperature will fall off with distance. My crude results will in no way obviate the need for a more realistic analysis, no matter how it turns out.
Stay tuned.
Translation:
Lets not get hung up on the word pyroclastic flow. He was only about 1000 degrees off in his calculation anyway. And lets not nit pick, Pyroclastic flows are 100 C which is 212 degrees F anyway. What's the problem? Oh, no one complained about a burning hot debris cloud... No ones lungs burned... Well what about the fireman talking about the tremendous heat! So what, they said "From the fires". Well just leave that part out...
Metamars, Foxx & gordon civil engineering
We lean over backwards for you.
I must confess that it has been quite some time since I read Hoffmans paper, so someone may very well point out that I am wrong on my following thoughts...
based upon my recollections, I tend to agree with with newton, that it seemed to me that the heat calculations were based upon the energy it took to crush the concrete and to initially expand the dust cloud away from the tower ... not that the cloud itself was 'x' or 'y' temperature. I can't see that Hoffman would state the entire cloud itself was that temperature - surely he could not have meant that, because as the detractors rightly point out it would have incinerated everything it touched... it would have set fire to any building, paper, etc. Also, is it not ridiculous to think that the cloud itself would be 1000 C, yet 5 feet outside the cloud would be ambient temperature? I never got that understanding when I last read the paper, and have always thought that the obfuscators were just altering his words.
I also had the understanding that he never stated that the concrete was ALL crushed to 60 micron size, but just took that to be an average size so as to quantify the results (based upon the 60 micron size particulate). I think it is ridiculous to think that every last morsel of concrete was pulverized to exactly that size, and I don't think that was what he was essentially saying. At some point in time in doing some theoretical calculations one must choose a median figure to work with, and I believe that that is what he did.
I also think that the word 'pyroclastic' has been seized upon and distorted by the obfuscators as being a literal meaning as opposed to a comparative term related to the density and flow of the material moreso than temperatures involved.
Having said that... I will add the disclaimer (before the gov't supporters seize upon my every word above in absolute literal interpretations in some attempt to prove I am lying or 'wrong'), that I will have to refresh my memory by re-reading his paper, and the above are just my hazy recollections of what the essence of his paper said.
edit to add - I just read the bull of Non-Sense. I hardly think that YOU , Schneiby-Dooby-Doo can claim that anyone is a 'laughing stock' --- after posting that Amazing Supersonic Jet-Fuel theory, and supporting the Amazing Underground Bellows theory. It's quite easy to state on an open forum that some-one else is a laughing stock. I'm still waiting for you to produce the NIST photos you claim show raging infernos in WTC 2. If anyone is a laughing stock on the internet - it's Schneibster (who coincidentally seems to have held ALL the same beliefs that YOU have been spouting since you coincidentally replaced him after his humiliation on this thread. He certainly didn't do much better on the Circumpolarization of Light thread with Hexa... nor at GNN... I'm afraid ol' Schneibster seems to have disappeared (only to replaced by his clone --- that would be YOU). IF (in fact) you are not one of Schneiby's puppets, you certainly have not posted anything original at all on this thread, but simply parrot the degenerate Schneibster). Have a Pheasant Plucking Day (preferably somewhere like Roves forum).
Hell, what would you consider the range of error in Hoffman's calculation of 1000 degrees to be then?
10%? 25%? 50%? At 70% then that still leaves it as hot as the self cleaning feature of a domestic kitchen stove. At 90% (as pointed out above) it is still a killing temperature. Any person 200 feet away from a tower who started running immediatly upon collapse initiation and if that collapse took 15 seconds to happen and if the dust cloud did not start rolling out until that time would be a max of 300 feet from the tower when that cloud caught them. IF said cloud was even double normal body temperature, for the sake of arguement call it 75 degrees Celcius this would seriously injure and likely kill outright anyone enveloped by it let alone what would happen if Hoffman's "crude calculation" is only off by 50% and that person was enveloped by a cloud that was 500 degrees C.
Hoffman chose the term 'pyroclastic' no one else. At 1000 deg C it would qualify as in the range of volcanic pyroclastic flows. Even at 350 deg C it would be in the range of that which emanated from Mt. St. Helens, at 750 deg C it is in the range of what came from Pinatubo. The main difference between what Hoffman describes and an actual volcanic flow would be the density and velocity. An actual volcanic flow would be denser and faster by far. So Hoffman's only valid reason to use this term IS the temperature. IF it could be shown that the temp of the dust cloud even approached the sea level boiling point of water I would not have a problem with his appropriating the term but even that would have his calculations off by 90% from his 1000 degrees!!!!!! What then are we to make of any other assumptions and calculations he puts forward??
Get real!
reference
Hell, what would you consider the range of error in Hoffman's calculation of 1000 degrees to be then?
10%? 25%? 50%? At 70% then that still leaves it as hot as the self cleaning feature of a domestic kitchen stove. At 90% (as pointed out above) it is still a killing temperature. Any person 200 feet away from a tower who started running immediatly upon collapse initiation and if that collapse took 15 seconds to happen and if the dust cloud did not start rolling out until that time would be a max of 300 feet from the tower when that cloud caught them. IF said cloud was even double normal body temperature, for the sake of arguement call it 75 degrees Celcius this would seriously injure and likely kill outright anyone enveloped by it let alone what would happen if Hoffman's "crude calculation" is only off by 50% and that person was enveloped by a cloud that was 500 degrees C.
Hoffman chose the term 'pyroclastic' no one else. At 1000 deg C it would qualify as in the range of volcanic pyroclastic flows. Even at 350 deg C it would be in the range of that which emanated from Mt. St. Helens, at 750 deg C it is in the range of what came from Pinatubo. The main difference between what Hoffman describes and an actual volcanic flow would be the density and velocity. An actual volcanic flow would be denser and faster by far. So Hoffman's only valid reason to use this term IS the temperature. IF it could be shown that the temp of the dust cloud even approached the sea level boiling point of water I would not have a problem with his appropriating the term but even that would have his calculations off by 90% from his 1000 degrees!!!!!! What then are we to make of any other assumptions and calculations he puts forward??
Get real!
reference
Pyroclastic flows can be very hot. In fact, pyroclastic flows from Mount Pelee had temperatures as high as 1075 degrees C (Bryant, 1991)! Some Pyroclastic flows from Pinatubo had temperatures of 750 degrees C and pyroclastic flows from Mount St. Helens had temperatures of 350 degrees C ( Bryant, 1991). Such high temperature flows can burn manmade structures, vegetation, and, for those unlikely enough to be caught by then, human skin
I think your problem is 1 dimensional thinking. In 3 dimensions, we have all kinds of chaotic events occuring, not taken account of in your simplistic cogitation.
What you need is 3 dimensional, chaotic thinking!!
Then, you can seriously consider how the PRINCIPLES of physics would allow for, just to give an example, Amazing Bellows which can stoke subterranean fires for weeks on end, such that metal becomes white hot!
If you expand your thinking further, to say, 4 dimensional thinking, then clearly Air conditioned Amazing Bellows are completely possible. Have you never seen a photo of a housing after a hurricane has swept through? You could have 100 surrounding houses leveled, and 1 left, standing straight as an arrow!! The same with forests!!
These are the PRINCIPLES of PHYSICS, which you obviously don't understand, mate!!
If you dispute these PRINCIPLES, then go ahead and disprove them!!! But I suggest you get an education first in PHYSICS! 400 pages of your coincidence theories, and you STILL haven't proven ANYTHING!!
Ciao!!
that was nearly perfect.
'coincidence theory' on hyper-steroids from outer space, even, lol!
say, the whole general strain issue seems to be the 'plastic hinge' which decides whether or not the towers will fall in a chain sequence or not(timing aside).
agreed from both sides?
and once again, the lower limit for a pyroclastic flow, according to wiki(i don't know) is 100 degrees C, just for the record.
now does this mean that the SOURCE of the heat which causes the outward expansion and billowing of the hot cloud, or does it mean the temperature of the cloud itself? an important distinction, in my IGNORANT opinion.
Hoffman does a crude calculation, though he has mentioned that temperatures near Ground Zero were not as extreme as his "target temperature" of about 1000K.
I don't think the question should be whether Hoffman's use of the term "pyroclastic flow" needs to be suitable for volcanologists, but what exactly the physics of it all tells us. Whining about the use of the term "pyroclastic flow" for the most part impresses me not at all, but ultimately only the physics matters. I'm sure that if Hoffman can prove the key intent of his thesis - viz., a massive energy deficit - in a manner acceptable to all, then he will be happy to use a different terminology. Certainly, that is my attitude.
His pope-ish critics pretend that if temperatures don't closely match Hoffman's crude estimate, then that is the end of the story, but it is not. I just checked Hoffman's web site, and he is working on a revision of his paper, to adress critiques that he has received. I get the sense that it will be significantly more solid, but still not incorporate fluid hydrodynamics and God knows what else you need to get a result that will be satisfactory to even honest skeptics.
Convincing honest skeptics is a noble goal, of course, and every attempt should be made along those lines, even if it should turn out that such an attempt proves that Hoffman was essentially wrong.
I am working on the calculation of an elaboration of Hoffman that I sketched out recently on this thread, and hopefully will post it soon.... The idea is to get a better idea how rapidly temperature will fall off with distance. My crude results will in no way obviate the need for a more realistic analysis, no matter how it turns out.
Stay tuned.
Translation:
Lets not get hung up on the word pyroclastic flow. He was only about 1000 degrees off in his calculation anyway. And lets not nit pick, Pyroclastic flows are 100 C which is 212 degrees F anyway. What's the problem? Oh, no one complained about a burning hot debris cloud... No ones lungs burned... Well what about the fireman talking about the tremendous heat! So what, they said "From the fires". Well just leave that part out...
Metamars, Foxx & gordon civil engineering
We lean over backwards for you.
Am I misunderstanding volatile. Metal powder can be the fuel for a Thermobaric weapon. How is this volatile in a canister before being dispersed?
This goes to the outlandishness of these bean counters. It would have been very easy to check if anyone complained about 1000 degree heat from the cloud. That would have been easy to verify because thousands would have complained. In fact I suspect thousands would have complained about the lower scale 212 degree range.
But now that hes been the laughing stock of universities world wide hes going to fix hes new calculations around the evidence on the ground. Heh!
Why continue to defend him? Battered women syndrome?
But now that hes been the laughing stock of universities world wide hes going to fix hes new calculations around the evidence on the ground. Heh!
Why continue to defend him? Battered women syndrome?
let's not forget that in a hurricane, the border between the 'eye' and the 'swirl' is kinda like freaky in it's ability to rip up one house into shreds, and leave the ones on either side completely untouched.
chaos really is.
p.s. common sense, could you not just edit your quotes a LITTLE bit for the sake of readability and plain old LIBERAL consideration for the host of this site's bandwidth concerns?
pretty please?
and, i'm curious, too. as an aside. did you march on 16th ave. during the RNC and get locked up at pier 57 with the rest of the concerned, activist liberals?
chaos really is.
p.s. common sense, could you not just edit your quotes a LITTLE bit for the sake of readability and plain old LIBERAL consideration for the host of this site's bandwidth concerns?
pretty please?
and, i'm curious, too. as an aside. did you march on 16th ave. during the RNC and get locked up at pier 57 with the rest of the concerned, activist liberals?
QUOTE
by metamars
Hoffman does a crude calculation, though he has mentioned that temperatures near Ground Zero were not as extreme as his "target temperature" of about 1000K.
I don't think the question should be whether Hoffman's use of the term "pyroclastic flow" needs to be suitable for volcanologists, but what exactly the physics of it all tells us. Whining about the use of the term "pyroclastic flow" for the most part impresses me not at all, but ultimately only the physics matters. I'm sure that if Hoffman can prove the key intent of his thesis - viz., a massive energy deficit - in a manner acceptable to all, then he will be happy to use a different terminology. Certainly, that is my attitude.
His pope-ish critics pretend that if temperatures don't closely match Hoffman's crude estimate, then that is the end of the story, but it is not. I just checked Hoffman's web site, and he is working on a revision of his paper, to adress critiques that he has received. I get the sense that it will be significantly more solid, but still not incorporate fluid hydrodynamics and God knows what else you need to get a result that will be satisfactory to even honest skeptics.
Convincing honest skeptics is a noble goal, of course, and every attempt should be made along those lines, even if it should turn out that such an attempt proves that Hoffman was essentially wrong.
I am working on the calculation of an elaboration of Hoffman that I sketched out recently on this thread, and hopefully will post it soon.... The idea is to get a better idea how rapidly temperature will fall off with distance. My crude results will in no way obviate the need for a more realistic analysis, no matter how it turns out.
Hoffman does a crude calculation, though he has mentioned that temperatures near Ground Zero were not as extreme as his "target temperature" of about 1000K.
I don't think the question should be whether Hoffman's use of the term "pyroclastic flow" needs to be suitable for volcanologists, but what exactly the physics of it all tells us. Whining about the use of the term "pyroclastic flow" for the most part impresses me not at all, but ultimately only the physics matters. I'm sure that if Hoffman can prove the key intent of his thesis - viz., a massive energy deficit - in a manner acceptable to all, then he will be happy to use a different terminology. Certainly, that is my attitude.
His pope-ish critics pretend that if temperatures don't closely match Hoffman's crude estimate, then that is the end of the story, but it is not. I just checked Hoffman's web site, and he is working on a revision of his paper, to adress critiques that he has received. I get the sense that it will be significantly more solid, but still not incorporate fluid hydrodynamics and God knows what else you need to get a result that will be satisfactory to even honest skeptics.
Convincing honest skeptics is a noble goal, of course, and every attempt should be made along those lines, even if it should turn out that such an attempt proves that Hoffman was essentially wrong.
I am working on the calculation of an elaboration of Hoffman that I sketched out recently on this thread, and hopefully will post it soon.... The idea is to get a better idea how rapidly temperature will fall off with distance. My crude results will in no way obviate the need for a more realistic analysis, no matter how it turns out.
I must confess that it has been quite some time since I read Hoffmans paper, so someone may very well point out that I am wrong on my following thoughts...
based upon my recollections, I tend to agree with with newton, that it seemed to me that the heat calculations were based upon the energy it took to crush the concrete and to initially expand the dust cloud away from the tower ... not that the cloud itself was 'x' or 'y' temperature. I can't see that Hoffman would state the entire cloud itself was that temperature - surely he could not have meant that, because as the detractors rightly point out it would have incinerated everything it touched... it would have set fire to any building, paper, etc. Also, is it not ridiculous to think that the cloud itself would be 1000 C, yet 5 feet outside the cloud would be ambient temperature? I never got that understanding when I last read the paper, and have always thought that the obfuscators were just altering his words.
I also had the understanding that he never stated that the concrete was ALL crushed to 60 micron size, but just took that to be an average size so as to quantify the results (based upon the 60 micron size particulate). I think it is ridiculous to think that every last morsel of concrete was pulverized to exactly that size, and I don't think that was what he was essentially saying. At some point in time in doing some theoretical calculations one must choose a median figure to work with, and I believe that that is what he did.
I also think that the word 'pyroclastic' has been seized upon and distorted by the obfuscators as being a literal meaning as opposed to a comparative term related to the density and flow of the material moreso than temperatures involved.
Having said that... I will add the disclaimer (before the gov't supporters seize upon my every word above in absolute literal interpretations in some attempt to prove I am lying or 'wrong'), that I will have to refresh my memory by re-reading his paper, and the above are just my hazy recollections of what the essence of his paper said.
edit to add - I just read the bull of Non-Sense. I hardly think that YOU , Schneiby-Dooby-Doo can claim that anyone is a 'laughing stock' --- after posting that Amazing Supersonic Jet-Fuel theory, and supporting the Amazing Underground Bellows theory. It's quite easy to state on an open forum that some-one else is a laughing stock. I'm still waiting for you to produce the NIST photos you claim show raging infernos in WTC 2. If anyone is a laughing stock on the internet - it's Schneibster (who coincidentally seems to have held ALL the same beliefs that YOU have been spouting since you coincidentally replaced him after his humiliation on this thread. He certainly didn't do much better on the Circumpolarization of Light thread with Hexa... nor at GNN... I'm afraid ol' Schneibster seems to have disappeared (only to replaced by his clone --- that would be YOU). IF (in fact) you are not one of Schneiby's puppets, you certainly have not posted anything original at all on this thread, but simply parrot the degenerate Schneibster). Have a Pheasant Plucking Day
(preferably somewhere like Roves forum).QUOTE
Hoffman does a crude calculation, though he has mentioned that temperatures near Ground Zero were not as extreme as his "target temperature" of about 1000K.
I don't think the question should be whether Hoffman's use of the term "pyroclastic flow" needs to be suitable for volcanologists, but what exactly the physics of it all tells us. Whining about the use of the term "pyroclastic flow" for the most part impresses me not at all, but ultimately only the physics matters. I'm sure that if Hoffman can prove the key intent of his thesis - viz., a massive energy deficit - in a manner acceptable to all, then he will be happy to use a different terminology. Certainly, that is my attitude.
His pope-ish critics pretend that if temperatures don't closely match Hoffman's crude estimate, then that is the end of the story, but it is not. I just checked Hoffman's web site, and he is working on a revision of his paper, to adress critiques that he has received. I get the sense that it will be significantly more solid, but still not incorporate fluid hydrodynamics and God knows what else you need to get a result that will be satisfactory to even honest skeptics.
Convincing honest skeptics is a noble goal, of course, and every attempt should be made along those lines, even if it should turn out that such an attempt proves that Hoffman was essentially wrong.
I don't think the question should be whether Hoffman's use of the term "pyroclastic flow" needs to be suitable for volcanologists, but what exactly the physics of it all tells us. Whining about the use of the term "pyroclastic flow" for the most part impresses me not at all, but ultimately only the physics matters. I'm sure that if Hoffman can prove the key intent of his thesis - viz., a massive energy deficit - in a manner acceptable to all, then he will be happy to use a different terminology. Certainly, that is my attitude.
His pope-ish critics pretend that if temperatures don't closely match Hoffman's crude estimate, then that is the end of the story, but it is not. I just checked Hoffman's web site, and he is working on a revision of his paper, to adress critiques that he has received. I get the sense that it will be significantly more solid, but still not incorporate fluid hydrodynamics and God knows what else you need to get a result that will be satisfactory to even honest skeptics.
Convincing honest skeptics is a noble goal, of course, and every attempt should be made along those lines, even if it should turn out that such an attempt proves that Hoffman was essentially wrong.
Hell, what would you consider the range of error in Hoffman's calculation of 1000 degrees to be then?
10%? 25%? 50%? At 70% then that still leaves it as hot as the self cleaning feature of a domestic kitchen stove. At 90% (as pointed out above) it is still a killing temperature. Any person 200 feet away from a tower who started running immediatly upon collapse initiation and if that collapse took 15 seconds to happen and if the dust cloud did not start rolling out until that time would be a max of 300 feet from the tower when that cloud caught them. IF said cloud was even double normal body temperature, for the sake of arguement call it 75 degrees Celcius this would seriously injure and likely kill outright anyone enveloped by it let alone what would happen if Hoffman's "crude calculation" is only off by 50% and that person was enveloped by a cloud that was 500 degrees C.
Hoffman chose the term 'pyroclastic' no one else. At 1000 deg C it would qualify as in the range of volcanic pyroclastic flows. Even at 350 deg C it would be in the range of that which emanated from Mt. St. Helens, at 750 deg C it is in the range of what came from Pinatubo. The main difference between what Hoffman describes and an actual volcanic flow would be the density and velocity. An actual volcanic flow would be denser and faster by far. So Hoffman's only valid reason to use this term IS the temperature. IF it could be shown that the temp of the dust cloud even approached the sea level boiling point of water I would not have a problem with his appropriating the term but even that would have his calculations off by 90% from his 1000 degrees!!!!!! What then are we to make of any other assumptions and calculations he puts forward??
Get real!
reference
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hoffman does a crude calculation, though he has mentioned that temperatures near Ground Zero were not as extreme as his "target temperature" of about 1000K. I don't think the question should be whether Hoffman's use of the term "pyroclastic flow" needs to be suitable for volcanologists, but what exactly the physics of it all tells us. Whining about the use of the term "pyroclastic flow" for the most part impresses me not at all, but ultimately only the physics matters. I'm sure that if Hoffman can prove the key intent of his thesis - viz., a massive energy deficit - in a manner acceptable to all, then he will be happy to use a different terminology. Certainly, that is my attitude. His pope-ish critics pretend that if temperatures don't closely match Hoffman's crude estimate, then that is the end of the story, but it is not. I just checked Hoffman's web site, and he is working on a revision of his paper, to adress critiques that he has received. I get the sense that it will be significantly more solid, but still not incorporate fluid hydrodynamics and God knows what else you need to get a result that will be satisfactory to even honest skeptics. Convincing honest skeptics is a noble goal, of course, and every attempt should be made along those lines, even if it should turn out that such an attempt proves that Hoffman was essentially wrong. |
Hell, what would you consider the range of error in Hoffman's calculation of 1000 degrees to be then?
10%? 25%? 50%? At 70% then that still leaves it as hot as the self cleaning feature of a domestic kitchen stove. At 90% (as pointed out above) it is still a killing temperature. Any person 200 feet away from a tower who started running immediatly upon collapse initiation and if that collapse took 15 seconds to happen and if the dust cloud did not start rolling out until that time would be a max of 300 feet from the tower when that cloud caught them. IF said cloud was even double normal body temperature, for the sake of arguement call it 75 degrees Celcius this would seriously injure and likely kill outright anyone enveloped by it let alone what would happen if Hoffman's "crude calculation" is only off by 50% and that person was enveloped by a cloud that was 500 degrees C.
Hoffman chose the term 'pyroclastic' no one else. At 1000 deg C it would qualify as in the range of volcanic pyroclastic flows. Even at 350 deg C it would be in the range of that which emanated from Mt. St. Helens, at 750 deg C it is in the range of what came from Pinatubo. The main difference between what Hoffman describes and an actual volcanic flow would be the density and velocity. An actual volcanic flow would be denser and faster by far. So Hoffman's only valid reason to use this term IS the temperature. IF it could be shown that the temp of the dust cloud even approached the sea level boiling point of water I would not have a problem with his appropriating the term but even that would have his calculations off by 90% from his 1000 degrees!!!!!! What then are we to make of any other assumptions and calculations he puts forward??
Get real!
reference
Pyroclastic flows can be very hot. In fact, pyroclastic flows from Mount Pelee had temperatures as high as 1075 degrees C (Bryant, 1991)! Some Pyroclastic flows from Pinatubo had temperatures of 750 degrees C and pyroclastic flows from Mount St. Helens had temperatures of 350 degrees C ( Bryant, 1991). Such high temperature flows can burn manmade structures, vegetation, and, for those unlikely enough to be caught by then, human skin
rove has a forum!?
link, if so?
link, if so?
Furthermore, Non Sense...
Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your physics evaluation of what exactly that rectangular glowing item is that NIST claims is burning metal... instead of your high school sarcasm?
If in fact it is burning aluminum... how did that small fire in the corner reach the 2000 C temperatures to catch aluminum on fire?
Why is it a rectangular shape?
Why did it not just melt away (at 500 - 600 C) as aluminum is wont to do?
Of course you don't have any intelligent input so like ol' Schneibster you resort to high school diddley-squat spam. As Plato used to say...
Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your physics evaluation of what exactly that rectangular glowing item is that NIST claims is burning metal... instead of your high school sarcasm?
If in fact it is burning aluminum... how did that small fire in the corner reach the 2000 C temperatures to catch aluminum on fire?
Why is it a rectangular shape?
Why did it not just melt away (at 500 - 600 C) as aluminum is wont to do?
Of course you don't have any intelligent input so like ol' Schneibster you resort to high school diddley-squat spam. As Plato used to say...
"Some men speak because they have something to say... and some men speak because they Have to Say Something"
Your constant spam, arrogance, insults, and unintelligent posts show that you are of the latter group....
Not to mention being Soooooo reminiscent of our dearly departed Schneibster clown.
BTW - contrary to your constant pope-isms that Schneiby has refuted (ANYTHING) on this thread, your fawning is HIGHLY exagerrated--- as anyone can tell who has read the entire thread. He was a great bullshipper, but that's about it.
And I further challenge you to address the factual information contained on this page... http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html ...
Refute away...
Or should I say...
"Hi YO, Silver... and AWAY"
How about a reference for that Foxx.
My understanding is that burning aluminum reachs a temp of 2000 F(1093 C)
Actually good questions, because they could not have in the months before the demolition. This does not mean they were not there.
What we saw is not possible without masive amounts of high explosives optimally placed and distributed throughout the towers. There is NO other way to make the event happen as we saw it.
The buildings were built to demolish. High explosives were encapsulated in the concrete, preserved and protected with paraffin access plugs covering openings.
Allow me to correct one aspect of your post.
Airplane impacts and fires will not set off high explosives, but you are correct in that their detonations systems can be destroyed. There were so many autonomous digital delays involved that one side of one floors worth just won't matter. Here is a full explanation for: Free fall, totoal pulverization and the illogical sequence of impacts and buildings falling.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
How about a reference for that Foxx.
My understanding is that burning aluminum reachs a temp of 2000 F(1093 C)
It is difficult to get an accurate figure... I've seen temperatures all over the map and it's difficult to tell how such a diversity in temperatures are reached.
However, in order to get aluminum to ignite (actually catch fire) you must have temperatures high enough to melt off the aluminum oxide coating (just as NIST claims in the quote on my page above)...
How about a reference for that Foxx.
My understanding is that burning aluminum reachs a temp of 2000 F(1093 C)
It is difficult to get an accurate figure... I've seen temperatures all over the map and it's difficult to tell how such a diversity in temperatures are reached.
However, in order to get aluminum to ignite (actually catch fire) you must have temperatures high enough to melt off the aluminum oxide coating (just as NIST claims in the quote on my page above)...
from NIST
Aluminum will burn, but in normal fires it usually melts instead because the metal surface is protected by an oxide layer that must be breeched before ignition can take place. Aluminum oxide melts at high temperatures that are not typically reached in normal fires.
Here is a materials page from Inchem...
( 2054 C )...
http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics0351.htm
I must confess that it has been quite some time since I read Hoffmans paper, so someone may very well point out that I am wrong on my following thoughts...
based upon my recollections, I tend to agree with with newton, that it seemed to me that the heat calculations were based upon the energy it took to crush the concrete and to initially expand the dust cloud away from the tower ... not that the cloud itself was 'x' or 'y' temperature. I can't see that Hoffman would state the entire cloud itself was that temperature - surely he could not have meant that, because as the detractors rightly point out it would have incinerated everything it touched... it would have set fire to any building, paper, etc. Also, is it not ridiculous to think that the cloud itself would be 1000 C, yet 5 feet outside the cloud would be ambient temperature? I never got that understanding when I last read the paper, and have always thought that the obfuscators were just altering his words.
I also had the understanding that he never stated that the concrete was ALL crushed to 60 micron size, but just took that to be an average size so as to quantify the results (based upon the 60 micron size particulate). I think it is ridiculous to think that every last morsel of concrete was pulverized to exactly that size, and I don't think that was what he was essentially saying. At some point in time in doing some theoretical calculations one must choose a median figure to work with, and I believe that that is what he did.
I also think that the word 'pyroclastic' has been seized upon and distorted by the obfuscators as being a literal meaning as opposed to a comparative term related to the density and flow of the material moreso than temperatures involved.
Having said that... I will add the disclaimer (before the gov't supporters seize upon my every word above in absolute literal interpretations in some attempt to prove I am lying or 'wrong'), that I will have to refresh my memory by re-reading his paper, and the above are just my hazy recollections of what the essence of his paper said.
edit to add - I just read the bull of Non-Sense. I hardly think that YOU , Schneiby-Dooby-Doo can claim that anyone is a 'laughing stock' --- after posting that Amazing Supersonic Jet-Fuel theory, and supporting the Amazing Underground Bellows theory. It's quite easy to state on an open forum that some-one else is a laughing stock. I'm still waiting for you to produce the NIST photos you claim show raging infernos in WTC 2. If anyone is a laughing stock on the internet - it's Schneibster (who coincidentally seems to have held ALL the same beliefs that YOU have been spouting since you coincidentally replaced him after his humiliation on this thread. He certainly didn't do much better on the Circumpolarization of Light thread with Hexa... nor at GNN... I'm afraid ol' Schneibster seems to have disappeared (only to replaced by his clone --- that would be YOU). IF (in fact) you are not one of Schneiby's puppets, you certainly have not posted anything original at all on this thread, but simply parrot the degenerate Schneibster). Have a Pheasant Plucking Day (preferably somewhere like Roves forum).
You're lying again Faux. What a suprise...
I never posted anything of the kind. I just said Aduo, bellows theory has more evidence than your thermite - micro-nuke - thermobaric - Pyroclastic flow - free-fall - elevator canon - next moronic post theory.
You see the above? That's what makes you a laughing stock. 500 pages of your Pyroclastic flows that leave trees untouched yet burn buses - free-falling buildings with rocket powered columns which out pace it - elevator canons created by explosives/nukes set off in the bottom of the core - Airliners crashing into office buildings without raging fires - photos of melted metals without knowing if they were even in WTC - hopping explosive effects - Airliners that punch 5 story gaping holes into an office building then sealing the hole starving the fires... Need more examples of your lunacy? How about your paranoia which knows no bounds? Everyone is a secret agent working for the MIB. As if the federal government cares about what faux, a Canadian thinks. If nothing else, that alone make you a loon. Heh!
Yeah, you chased Schneibster away with your moronic attacks. That's what you wanted isn't it. It was sickening, perverted and way over the line to attack his family. How dare you drag his family into this stupid thread. You have no morals and no shame. I bet you don't know what that's like because no one will marry your putrid a$$. You have no family to drag here. All you have is a cat and a bestiality porn URL... Poor cat...
But then again I never did care what you do or say to me. So you can be sure I'm not gong ANYWHERE. I'll be pointing out your idiocy every chance I get. Just incase someone missed the obvious.
QUOTE
by Foxx
"Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"...
and YOUR reply...
You got that right.. Heh!
"Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"...
and YOUR reply...
You got that right.. Heh!
Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your physics evaluation of what exactly that rectangular glowing item is that NIST claims is burning metal... instead of your high school sarcasm?
If in fact it is burning aluminum... how did that small fire in the corner reach the 2000 C temperatures to catch aluminum on fire?
Why is it a rectangular shape?
Why did it not just melt away (at 500 - 600 C) as aluminum is wont to do?
Of course you don't have any intelligent input so like ol' Schneibster you resort to high school diddley-squat spam. As Plato used to say...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by Foxx "Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"... and YOUR reply... You got that right.. Heh! |
Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your physics evaluation of what exactly that rectangular glowing item is that NIST claims is burning metal... instead of your high school sarcasm?
If in fact it is burning aluminum... how did that small fire in the corner reach the 2000 C temperatures to catch aluminum on fire?
Why is it a rectangular shape?
Why did it not just melt away (at 500 - 600 C) as aluminum is wont to do?
Of course you don't have any intelligent input so like ol' Schneibster you resort to high school diddley-squat spam. As Plato used to say...
"Some men speak because they have something to say... and some men speak because they Have to Say Something"
Your constant spam, arrogance, insults, and unintelligent posts show that you are of the latter group....
Not to mention being Soooooo reminiscent of our dearly departed Schneibster clown.
BTW - contrary to your constant pope-isms that Schneiby has refuted (ANYTHING) on this thread, your fawning is HIGHLY exagerrated--- as anyone can tell who has read the entire thread. He was a great bullshipper, but that's about it.
And I further challenge you to address the factual information contained on this page... http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html ...
Refute away...
Or should I say...
"Hi YO, Silver... and AWAY"
QUOTE
If in fact is is burning aluminum how did that small fire in the corner reach the 2000 C temperatures to catch aluminum on fire?
How about a reference for that Foxx.
My understanding is that burning aluminum reachs a temp of 2000 F(1093 C)
QUOTE
the YID is Back
I cannot count the number of times I have asked how explosives could be placed near the impact floors of each building and be placed such that they did not go off prematurely with either the impact or the subsequent fires and also have their supposed remote control mechanisms intact not only on impact floors but also on all floors in which there were supposed explosives(above and below the impact zones)
To date there has been only silence on this.
I cannot count the number of times I have asked how explosives could be placed near the impact floors of each building and be placed such that they did not go off prematurely with either the impact or the subsequent fires and also have their supposed remote control mechanisms intact not only on impact floors but also on all floors in which there were supposed explosives(above and below the impact zones)
To date there has been only silence on this.
Actually good questions, because they could not have in the months before the demolition. This does not mean they were not there.
What we saw is not possible without masive amounts of high explosives optimally placed and distributed throughout the towers. There is NO other way to make the event happen as we saw it.
The buildings were built to demolish. High explosives were encapsulated in the concrete, preserved and protected with paraffin access plugs covering openings.
Allow me to correct one aspect of your post.
Airplane impacts and fires will not set off high explosives, but you are correct in that their detonations systems can be destroyed. There were so many autonomous digital delays involved that one side of one floors worth just won't matter. Here is a full explanation for: Free fall, totoal pulverization and the illogical sequence of impacts and buildings falling.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 14 2006, 05:51 AM)
QUOTE
If in fact is is burning aluminum how did that small fire in the corner reach the 2000 C temperatures to catch aluminum on fire?
How about a reference for that Foxx.
My understanding is that burning aluminum reachs a temp of 2000 F(1093 C)
It is difficult to get an accurate figure... I've seen temperatures all over the map and it's difficult to tell how such a diversity in temperatures are reached.
However, in order to get aluminum to ignite (actually catch fire) you must have temperatures high enough to melt off the aluminum oxide coating (just as NIST claims in the quote on my page above)...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If in fact is is burning aluminum how did that small fire in the corner reach the 2000 C temperatures to catch aluminum on fire? |
How about a reference for that Foxx.
My understanding is that burning aluminum reachs a temp of 2000 F(1093 C)
It is difficult to get an accurate figure... I've seen temperatures all over the map and it's difficult to tell how such a diversity in temperatures are reached.
However, in order to get aluminum to ignite (actually catch fire) you must have temperatures high enough to melt off the aluminum oxide coating (just as NIST claims in the quote on my page above)...
from NIST
Aluminum will burn, but in normal fires it usually melts instead because the metal surface is protected by an oxide layer that must be breeched before ignition can take place. Aluminum oxide melts at high temperatures that are not typically reached in normal fires.
Here is a materials page from Inchem...
( 2054 C )...
http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics0351.htm
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 14 2006, 05:02 AM)
QUOTE
by metamars
Hoffman does a crude calculation, though he has mentioned that temperatures near Ground Zero were not as extreme as his "target temperature" of about 1000K.
I don't think the question should be whether Hoffman's use of the term "pyroclastic flow" needs to be suitable for volcanologists, but what exactly the physics of it all tells us. Whining about the use of the term "pyroclastic flow" for the most part impresses me not at all, but ultimately only the physics matters. I'm sure that if Hoffman can prove the key intent of his thesis - viz., a massive energy deficit - in a manner acceptable to all, then he will be happy to use a different terminology. Certainly, that is my attitude.
His pope-ish critics pretend that if temperatures don't closely match Hoffman's crude estimate, then that is the end of the story, but it is not. I just checked Hoffman's web site, and he is working on a revision of his paper, to adress critiques that he has received. I get the sense that it will be significantly more solid, but still not incorporate fluid hydrodynamics and God knows what else you need to get a result that will be satisfactory to even honest skeptics.
Convincing honest skeptics is a noble goal, of course, and every attempt should be made along those lines, even if it should turn out that such an attempt proves that Hoffman was essentially wrong.
I am working on the calculation of an elaboration of Hoffman that I sketched out recently on this thread, and hopefully will post it soon.... The idea is to get a better idea how rapidly temperature will fall off with distance. My crude results will in no way obviate the need for a more realistic analysis, no matter how it turns out.
Hoffman does a crude calculation, though he has mentioned that temperatures near Ground Zero were not as extreme as his "target temperature" of about 1000K.
I don't think the question should be whether Hoffman's use of the term "pyroclastic flow" needs to be suitable for volcanologists, but what exactly the physics of it all tells us. Whining about the use of the term "pyroclastic flow" for the most part impresses me not at all, but ultimately only the physics matters. I'm sure that if Hoffman can prove the key intent of his thesis - viz., a massive energy deficit - in a manner acceptable to all, then he will be happy to use a different terminology. Certainly, that is my attitude.
His pope-ish critics pretend that if temperatures don't closely match Hoffman's crude estimate, then that is the end of the story, but it is not. I just checked Hoffman's web site, and he is working on a revision of his paper, to adress critiques that he has received. I get the sense that it will be significantly more solid, but still not incorporate fluid hydrodynamics and God knows what else you need to get a result that will be satisfactory to even honest skeptics.
Convincing honest skeptics is a noble goal, of course, and every attempt should be made along those lines, even if it should turn out that such an attempt proves that Hoffman was essentially wrong.
I am working on the calculation of an elaboration of Hoffman that I sketched out recently on this thread, and hopefully will post it soon.... The idea is to get a better idea how rapidly temperature will fall off with distance. My crude results will in no way obviate the need for a more realistic analysis, no matter how it turns out.
I must confess that it has been quite some time since I read Hoffmans paper, so someone may very well point out that I am wrong on my following thoughts...
based upon my recollections, I tend to agree with with newton, that it seemed to me that the heat calculations were based upon the energy it took to crush the concrete and to initially expand the dust cloud away from the tower ... not that the cloud itself was 'x' or 'y' temperature. I can't see that Hoffman would state the entire cloud itself was that temperature - surely he could not have meant that, because as the detractors rightly point out it would have incinerated everything it touched... it would have set fire to any building, paper, etc. Also, is it not ridiculous to think that the cloud itself would be 1000 C, yet 5 feet outside the cloud would be ambient temperature? I never got that understanding when I last read the paper, and have always thought that the obfuscators were just altering his words.
I also had the understanding that he never stated that the concrete was ALL crushed to 60 micron size, but just took that to be an average size so as to quantify the results (based upon the 60 micron size particulate). I think it is ridiculous to think that every last morsel of concrete was pulverized to exactly that size, and I don't think that was what he was essentially saying. At some point in time in doing some theoretical calculations one must choose a median figure to work with, and I believe that that is what he did.
I also think that the word 'pyroclastic' has been seized upon and distorted by the obfuscators as being a literal meaning as opposed to a comparative term related to the density and flow of the material moreso than temperatures involved.
Having said that... I will add the disclaimer (before the gov't supporters seize upon my every word above in absolute literal interpretations in some attempt to prove I am lying or 'wrong'), that I will have to refresh my memory by re-reading his paper, and the above are just my hazy recollections of what the essence of his paper said.
edit to add - I just read the bull of Non-Sense. I hardly think that YOU , Schneiby-Dooby-Doo can claim that anyone is a 'laughing stock' --- after posting that Amazing Supersonic Jet-Fuel theory, and supporting the Amazing Underground Bellows theory. It's quite easy to state on an open forum that some-one else is a laughing stock. I'm still waiting for you to produce the NIST photos you claim show raging infernos in WTC 2. If anyone is a laughing stock on the internet - it's Schneibster (who coincidentally seems to have held ALL the same beliefs that YOU have been spouting since you coincidentally replaced him after his humiliation on this thread. He certainly didn't do much better on the Circumpolarization of Light thread with Hexa... nor at GNN... I'm afraid ol' Schneibster seems to have disappeared (only to replaced by his clone --- that would be YOU). IF (in fact) you are not one of Schneiby's puppets, you certainly have not posted anything original at all on this thread, but simply parrot the degenerate Schneibster). Have a Pheasant Plucking Day
(preferably somewhere like Roves forum). You're lying again Faux. What a suprise...
I never posted anything of the kind. I just said Aduo, bellows theory has more evidence than your thermite - micro-nuke - thermobaric - Pyroclastic flow - free-fall - elevator canon - next moronic post theory.You see the above? That's what makes you a laughing stock. 500 pages of your Pyroclastic flows that leave trees untouched yet burn buses - free-falling buildings with rocket powered columns which out pace it - elevator canons created by explosives/nukes set off in the bottom of the core - Airliners crashing into office buildings without raging fires - photos of melted metals without knowing if they were even in WTC - hopping explosive effects - Airliners that punch 5 story gaping holes into an office building then sealing the hole starving the fires... Need more examples of your lunacy? How about your paranoia which knows no bounds? Everyone is a secret agent working for the MIB. As if the federal government cares about what faux, a Canadian thinks. If nothing else, that alone make you a loon. Heh!
Yeah, you chased Schneibster away with your moronic attacks. That's what you wanted isn't it. It was sickening, perverted and way over the line to attack his family. How dare you drag his family into this stupid thread. You have no morals and no shame. I bet you don't know what that's like because no one will marry your putrid a$$. You have no family to drag here. All you have is a cat and a bestiality porn URL... Poor cat...
But then again I never did care what you do or say to me. So you can be sure I'm not gong ANYWHERE. I'll be pointing out your idiocy every chance I get. Just incase someone missed the obvious.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 14 2006, 05:18 AM)
Furthermore, Non Sense...
Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your physics evaluation of what exactly that rectangular glowing item is that NIST claims is burning metal... instead of your high school sarcasm?
If in fact it is burning aluminum... how did that small fire in the corner reach the 2000 C temperatures to catch aluminum on fire?
Why is it a rectangular shape?
Why did it not just melt away (at 500 - 600 C) as aluminum is wont to do?
Of course you don't have any intelligent input so like ol' Schneibster you resort to high school diddley-squat spam. As Plato used to say...
Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your physics evaluation of what exactly that rectangular glowing item is that NIST claims is burning metal... instead of your high school sarcasm?
If in fact it is burning aluminum... how did that small fire in the corner reach the 2000 C temperatures to catch aluminum on fire?
Why is it a rectangular shape?
Why did it not just melt away (at 500 - 600 C) as aluminum is wont to do?
Of course you don't have any intelligent input so like ol' Schneibster you resort to high school diddley-squat spam. As Plato used to say...
"Some men speak because they have something to say... and some men speak because they Have to Say Something"
Your constant spam, arrogance, insults, and unintelligent posts show that you are of the latter group....
Not to mention being Soooooo reminiscent of our dearly departed Schneibster clown.
BTW - contrary to your constant pope-isms that Schneiby has refuted (ANYTHING) on this thread, your fawning is HIGHLY exagerrated--- as anyone can tell who has read the entire thread. He was a great bullshipper, but that's about it.
And I further challenge you to address the factual information contained on this page... http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html ...
Refute away...
Or should I say...
"Hi YO, Silver... and AWAY"
Seeing how I don't have an agenda I don't GUESS what that is. All I know is YOU don't know what it is.
I can tell you what others have said which makes perfect sense. Someone said it could have been parts from the airliner. It was in a the exact area.
Nothing but sophist wishful thinking YID. Check the times on those photos I supplied - over half an hour AFTER the crash. Your 'theory' may have some plausibility IF the circumstances you postulate happened during the initial impact... NOT half an hour later. The Aluminum Oxide 'barrier' forms almost immediately when you scratch aluminum. It wouldn't be scraped off in the initial impact, and leave a bare aluminum surface for over half an hour before catching fire.
Next your theory runs into problems of plausibility because aircraft aluminum alloys melt at around 500 - 600 C. The aluminum would have melted and run away long before reaching temperatures which could ignite it.
And Next --- If the glowing 'metal fire' rectangle is aluminum burning... then why is the aluminum cladding right above it not on fire?
An unbiased scientific look at your postulation will pretty much put that theory to rest.
You are correct though that I can not explain the anomaly... the rectangular shape of it is truly baffling to me, and I can not even think what could account for such a situation.
What is clear is that this 'metal fire' appeared suddenly around half an hour after impact... and shortly before molten steel began pouring down the side of the building.
No point in trying to speculate that the molten metal is aluminum... Jones' experiments have put that to rest. His experiments completely refute Dr Greenings speculations. If you support Greening, I suggest you write him and tell him to get busy and respond to Jones empirical experiments. If he doesn't, he stands refuted.
Nothing but sophist wishful thinking YID. Check the times on those photos I supplied - over half an hour AFTER the crash. Your 'theory' may have some plausibility IF the circumstances you postulate happened during the initial impact... NOT half an hour later. The Aluminum Oxide 'barrier' forms almost immediately when you scratch aluminum. It wouldn't be scraped off in the initial impact, and leave a bare aluminum surface for over half an hour before catching fire.
Next your theory runs into problems of plausibility because aircraft aluminum alloys melt at around 500 - 600 C. The aluminum would have melted and run away long before reaching temperatures which could ignite it.
And Next --- If the glowing 'metal fire' rectangle is aluminum burning... then why is the aluminum cladding right above it not on fire?
An unbiased scientific look at your postulation will pretty much put that theory to rest.
You are correct though that I can not explain the anomaly... the rectangular shape of it is truly baffling to me, and I can not even think what could account for such a situation.
What is clear is that this 'metal fire' appeared suddenly around half an hour after impact... and shortly before molten steel began pouring down the side of the building.
No point in trying to speculate that the molten metal is aluminum... Jones' experiments have put that to rest. His experiments completely refute Dr Greenings speculations. If you support Greening, I suggest you write him and tell him to get busy and respond to Jones empirical experiments. If he doesn't, he stands refuted.
by YID
Sure those are 'could have's' but at least it utilizes known factors and is not a 'could have been thermite', utilizing a speculation of the existence of thermite.
You are speculating far more than I am. Thermite / Thermate has known properties which match exactly what we see. Not my problem that YOU think it is 'implausible' (in spite of all the body of evidence) that the buildings were purposely demolished.
You still have to have fires capable of even leading to steel-buckling collapses, and I have shown that the evidence just does not support that contention at least as far as WTC 2... (apart from wishful thinking). You need to refresh your memory and read the NIST reports (ALL of them) with a critical eye, rather than just blindly accepting the fairy tale presented.
Cheers
QUOTE
by Foxx
"Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"...
and YOUR reply...
You got that right.. Heh!
"Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"...
and YOUR reply...
You got that right.. Heh!
Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your physics evaluation of what exactly that rectangular glowing item is that NIST claims is burning metal... instead of your high school sarcasm?
If in fact it is burning aluminum... how did that small fire in the corner reach the 2000 C temperatures to catch aluminum on fire?
Why is it a rectangular shape?
Why did it not just melt away (at 500 - 600 C) as aluminum is wont to do?
Of course you don't have any intelligent input so like ol' Schneibster you resort to high school diddley-squat spam. As Plato used to say...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by Foxx "Nothing to see here, Folks... Move along now"... and YOUR reply... You got that right.. Heh! |
Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your physics evaluation of what exactly that rectangular glowing item is that NIST claims is burning metal... instead of your high school sarcasm?
If in fact it is burning aluminum... how did that small fire in the corner reach the 2000 C temperatures to catch aluminum on fire?
Why is it a rectangular shape?
Why did it not just melt away (at 500 - 600 C) as aluminum is wont to do?
Of course you don't have any intelligent input so like ol' Schneibster you resort to high school diddley-squat spam. As Plato used to say...
"Some men speak because they have something to say... and some men speak because they Have to Say Something"
Your constant spam, arrogance, insults, and unintelligent posts show that you are of the latter group....
Not to mention being Soooooo reminiscent of our dearly departed Schneibster clown.
BTW - contrary to your constant pope-isms that Schneiby has refuted (ANYTHING) on this thread, your fawning is HIGHLY exagerrated--- as anyone can tell who has read the entire thread. He was a great bullshipper, but that's about it.
And I further challenge you to address the factual information contained on this page... http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html ...
Refute away...
Or should I say...
"Hi YO, Silver... and AWAY"
Seeing how I don't have an agenda I don't GUESS what that is. All I know is YOU don't know what it is.
I can tell you what others have said which makes perfect sense. Someone said it could have been parts from the airliner. It was in a the exact area.
Here the ignition temp is given as 515 C
Correct in that the AlO needs to be removed but one need not burn it off. A sufficiently hard scraping while it is above 515 C and in the presence of O2 would ignite the Al .
Here we have flying debris after the plane impacts the building. The plane is made of AL, so is the cladding of the building. Sufficient scrapping action is available to bare the metal. The original fireball is well within the temp required to ignite AL. A thin piece of Al scraped and heated could ignite. Would it be common? NO. However given the amount of aluminum pieces available and the temp conditions being right it cannot be dismissed that a few pieces did in fact ignite.
Could this happen in a 'normal' office fire? Much less likely since no high speed scraping action on thin aluminum would be encountered.
How about other aircraft crashes? In these cases the flame front is rarely confined as it was when the aircraft entered the building. Almost all aircraft crashes occur outside. Indeed the only other modern(ie fast) aircraft crash as a direct hit that I can find has a 747 going right through an apartment building. In the case of the Pentagon this may have occurred but that building offered much less available oxygen and much less visibility of the fires. Essentially fires there were only observable from one side while the photo you provide offers views of this particular fire from three sides. Close by we see falling , burning metal but we cannot see the actual origin, the actual burning piece. It could easily be lodged on the interior side of the steel column and thus out of sight.
Sure those are 'could have's' but at least it utilizes known factors and is not a 'could have been thermite', utilizing a speculation of the existence of thermite.
Christophera, I consider the theory of preplanted explosives at the time of construction to be in the realm fantasy and of equal consideration as holographic aircraft images. Sorry pal but one really has to dig deep to not respond to such with sheer ridicule.
Correct in that the AlO needs to be removed but one need not burn it off. A sufficiently hard scraping while it is above 515 C and in the presence of O2 would ignite the Al .
Here we have flying debris after the plane impacts the building. The plane is made of AL, so is the cladding of the building. Sufficient scrapping action is available to bare the metal. The original fireball is well within the temp required to ignite AL. A thin piece of Al scraped and heated could ignite. Would it be common? NO. However given the amount of aluminum pieces available and the temp conditions being right it cannot be dismissed that a few pieces did in fact ignite.
Could this happen in a 'normal' office fire? Much less likely since no high speed scraping action on thin aluminum would be encountered.
How about other aircraft crashes? In these cases the flame front is rarely confined as it was when the aircraft entered the building. Almost all aircraft crashes occur outside. Indeed the only other modern(ie fast) aircraft crash as a direct hit that I can find has a 747 going right through an apartment building. In the case of the Pentagon this may have occurred but that building offered much less available oxygen and much less visibility of the fires. Essentially fires there were only observable from one side while the photo you provide offers views of this particular fire from three sides. Close by we see falling , burning metal but we cannot see the actual origin, the actual burning piece. It could easily be lodged on the interior side of the steel column and thus out of sight.
Sure those are 'could have's' but at least it utilizes known factors and is not a 'could have been thermite', utilizing a speculation of the existence of thermite.
Christophera, I consider the theory of preplanted explosives at the time of construction to be in the realm fantasy and of equal consideration as holographic aircraft images. Sorry pal but one really has to dig deep to not respond to such with sheer ridicule.
QUOTE
by YID
Correct in that the AlO needs to be removed but one need not burn it off. A sufficiently hard scraping while it is above 515 C and in the presence of O2 would ignite the Al .
Correct in that the AlO needs to be removed but one need not burn it off. A sufficiently hard scraping while it is above 515 C and in the presence of O2 would ignite the Al .
Nothing but sophist wishful thinking YID. Check the times on those photos I supplied - over half an hour AFTER the crash. Your 'theory' may have some plausibility IF the circumstances you postulate happened during the initial impact... NOT half an hour later. The Aluminum Oxide 'barrier' forms almost immediately when you scratch aluminum. It wouldn't be scraped off in the initial impact, and leave a bare aluminum surface for over half an hour before catching fire.
Next your theory runs into problems of plausibility because aircraft aluminum alloys melt at around 500 - 600 C. The aluminum would have melted and run away long before reaching temperatures which could ignite it.
And Next --- If the glowing 'metal fire' rectangle is aluminum burning... then why is the aluminum cladding right above it not on fire?
An unbiased scientific look at your postulation will pretty much put that theory to rest.
You are correct though that I can not explain the anomaly... the rectangular shape of it is truly baffling to me, and I can not even think what could account for such a situation.
What is clear is that this 'metal fire' appeared suddenly around half an hour after impact... and shortly before molten steel began pouring down the side of the building.
No point in trying to speculate that the molten metal is aluminum... Jones' experiments have put that to rest. His experiments completely refute Dr Greenings speculations. If you support Greening, I suggest you write him and tell him to get busy and respond to Jones empirical experiments. If he doesn't, he stands refuted.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by YID Correct in that the AlO needs to be removed but one need not burn it off. A sufficiently hard scraping while it is above 515 C and in the presence of O2 would ignite the Al . |
Nothing but sophist wishful thinking YID. Check the times on those photos I supplied - over half an hour AFTER the crash. Your 'theory' may have some plausibility IF the circumstances you postulate happened during the initial impact... NOT half an hour later. The Aluminum Oxide 'barrier' forms almost immediately when you scratch aluminum. It wouldn't be scraped off in the initial impact, and leave a bare aluminum surface for over half an hour before catching fire.
Next your theory runs into problems of plausibility because aircraft aluminum alloys melt at around 500 - 600 C. The aluminum would have melted and run away long before reaching temperatures which could ignite it.
And Next --- If the glowing 'metal fire' rectangle is aluminum burning... then why is the aluminum cladding right above it not on fire?
An unbiased scientific look at your postulation will pretty much put that theory to rest.
You are correct though that I can not explain the anomaly... the rectangular shape of it is truly baffling to me, and I can not even think what could account for such a situation.
What is clear is that this 'metal fire' appeared suddenly around half an hour after impact... and shortly before molten steel began pouring down the side of the building.
No point in trying to speculate that the molten metal is aluminum... Jones' experiments have put that to rest. His experiments completely refute Dr Greenings speculations. If you support Greening, I suggest you write him and tell him to get busy and respond to Jones empirical experiments. If he doesn't, he stands refuted.
by YID
Sure those are 'could have's' but at least it utilizes known factors and is not a 'could have been thermite', utilizing a speculation of the existence of thermite.
You are speculating far more than I am. Thermite / Thermate has known properties which match exactly what we see. Not my problem that YOU think it is 'implausible' (in spite of all the body of evidence) that the buildings were purposely demolished.
You still have to have fires capable of even leading to steel-buckling collapses, and I have shown that the evidence just does not support that contention at least as far as WTC 2... (apart from wishful thinking). You need to refresh your memory and read the NIST reports (ALL of them) with a critical eye, rather than just blindly accepting the fairy tale presented.
Cheers
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, holography
science fiction is not far from science fact as we ride the reality wave of moore's law.
exponentially closer to 'star trek', as it were.
and that's just the hologram.
there are also hand held 'phasers' not far off in the future(or past, depending on who you talk to). .....peww, pewwww
ouch, it hurts me deep inside my brain
or, poit, poit
it's not a police state
that's the stuff that's here now. do you think it was invented last week? or did they have a working prototype a while ago? what working prototypes do you think they have now? TNT? C4? thermite? thermate? a bow and arrow?
the future is now. wake up to it, or sink in the undertow.
i wonder if terrence mckenna was right about 'timewave zero'. that's compelling food for thought, imo.
science fiction is not far from science fact as we ride the reality wave of moore's law.
exponentially closer to 'star trek', as it were.
and that's just the hologram.
there are also hand held 'phasers' not far off in the future(or past, depending on who you talk to). .....peww, pewwww
ouch, it hurts me deep inside my brain
or, poit, poit
it's not a police state
that's the stuff that's here now. do you think it was invented last week? or did they have a working prototype a while ago? what working prototypes do you think they have now? TNT? C4? thermite? thermate? a bow and arrow?
the future is now. wake up to it, or sink in the undertow.
i wonder if terrence mckenna was right about 'timewave zero'. that's compelling food for thought, imo.
RE: ELEVATORS
(source: http://www.explosive911analysis.com/ )
According to the website of Otis Elevators, who installed and serviced the elevator systems within WTC 1 and WTC 2, each tower contained only 1 freight elevator that served both the sub levels of each tower and the floors within the impact zone of AA Flight 11 at WTC 1:
"In addition to normal freight service one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor."
http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344...S1_SEC5,00.html
However ... it seems that this particular freight elevator was in use during the impact of AA Flight 11 at WTC 1. Not only did it's operator and passenger survive the impact of Flight 11 but they also did not report evidence that would suggest the presence of any powerfully explosive fireball within the elevator's shaft:
"Arturo (Griffith) was running 50A, the big freight car going from the six-level basement to the 108th floor. When American Airlines Flight 11 struck at 8:46 a.m., Arturo and a co-worker were heading from the second-level basement to the 49th floor... Arturo heard a sudden whistling sound and the impact. Cables were severed and Arturo's car plunged into free fall. The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors. The imploding elevator door crushed Arturo's right knee and broke the tibia below it. His passenger escaped injury."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-0...griffiths_x.htm
It therefore seems, that the explosive force reported to have come from a freight elevator shaft servicing the WTC 1 lobby, should therefore have come from one of the several freight elevators servicing only the sub-levels of WTC 1 to points below the impact zone of AA Flight 11 and not the single freight elevator that serviced sub-level floors and floors within the impact zone of AA Flight 11. This therefore tends to suggest that the explosion emanating from a freight elevator as described above, may then have originated from the sub-levels of WTC 1 and not the impact zone of AA Flight 11 at WTC 1. This theory would tend to coincide with descriptions of explosions that are alleged to have in fact originated from the sub-levels of WTC 1:
(source: http://www.explosive911analysis.com/ )
According to the website of Otis Elevators, who installed and serviced the elevator systems within WTC 1 and WTC 2, each tower contained only 1 freight elevator that served both the sub levels of each tower and the floors within the impact zone of AA Flight 11 at WTC 1:
"In addition to normal freight service one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor."
http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344...S1_SEC5,00.html
However ... it seems that this particular freight elevator was in use during the impact of AA Flight 11 at WTC 1. Not only did it's operator and passenger survive the impact of Flight 11 but they also did not report evidence that would suggest the presence of any powerfully explosive fireball within the elevator's shaft:
"Arturo (Griffith) was running 50A, the big freight car going from the six-level basement to the 108th floor. When American Airlines Flight 11 struck at 8:46 a.m., Arturo and a co-worker were heading from the second-level basement to the 49th floor... Arturo heard a sudden whistling sound and the impact. Cables were severed and Arturo's car plunged into free fall. The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors. The imploding elevator door crushed Arturo's right knee and broke the tibia below it. His passenger escaped injury."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-0...griffiths_x.htm
It therefore seems, that the explosive force reported to have come from a freight elevator shaft servicing the WTC 1 lobby, should therefore have come from one of the several freight elevators servicing only the sub-levels of WTC 1 to points below the impact zone of AA Flight 11 and not the single freight elevator that serviced sub-level floors and floors within the impact zone of AA Flight 11. This therefore tends to suggest that the explosion emanating from a freight elevator as described above, may then have originated from the sub-levels of WTC 1 and not the impact zone of AA Flight 11 at WTC 1. This theory would tend to coincide with descriptions of explosions that are alleged to have in fact originated from the sub-levels of WTC 1:
Aluminum airliners melt WITHOUT hitting a building first...
...so what make YOU think they wouldn't melt after hitting an office building?
Note, this plane was not bombed. It skidded off the runway and into the grass, caught fire then MELTED.
Nuff said..
...so what make YOU think they wouldn't melt after hitting an office building?
Note, this plane was not bombed. It skidded off the runway and into the grass, caught fire then MELTED.
Nuff said..
HEHEHE!!!
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 14 2006, 06:20 AM)
Aluminum airliners melt WITHOUT hitting a building first...
...so what make YOU think they wouldn't melt after hitting an office building?
Note, this plane was not bombed. It skidded off the runway and into the grass, caught fire then MELTED.
Nuff said..
Were is the burning aluminum?
Or
What point are you trying to make?
...so what make YOU think they wouldn't melt after hitting an office building?
Note, this plane was not bombed. It skidded off the runway and into the grass, caught fire then MELTED.
Nuff said..
Were is the burning aluminum?
Or
What point are you trying to make?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 14 2006, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 14 2006, 06:20 AM)
Aluminum airliners melt WITHOUT hitting a building first...
...so what make YOU think they wouldn't melt after hitting an office building?
Note, this plane was not bombed. It skidded off the runway and into the grass, caught fire then MELTED.
Nuff said..
Were is the burning aluminum?
Or
What point are you trying to make?
Yep...
reasonwhy...
He's a sharp as a bag of jello, this one
Great!... Thanks YID.
So now we are supposed to believe a Geocities Yahoo site...
"Fabiano Mota Cavalcanti's Home Page"...
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/7169/index.html
as a reference source...as opposed to...
Inchem...
http://www.inchem.org/
This helps to explain a lot about your 'research'.
Were is the burning aluminum?
Or
What point are you trying to make?
This is the kind of response that makes your side look so stupid.
Wheres the aluminum in this picture?
Did someone cut it off?
USE YOUR HEAD
...so what make YOU think they wouldn't melt after hitting an office building?
Note, this plane was not bombed. It skidded off the runway and into the grass, caught fire then MELTED.
Nuff said..
Were is the burning aluminum?
Or
What point are you trying to make?
Yep...
reasonwhy...
He's a sharp as a bag of jello, this one
QUOTE (HEH!+Mar 14 2006, 02:51 PM)
HEHEHE!!!
Oh look, Schneibsters got another puppet.
Oh look, Schneibsters got another puppet.
QUOTE
Great!... Thanks YID.
So now we are supposed to believe a Geocities Yahoo site...
"Fabiano Mota Cavalcanti's Home Page"...
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/7169/index.html
as a reference source...as opposed to...
Inchem...
http://www.inchem.org/
This helps to explain a lot about your 'research'.
I think the disinformation team is on there way to a new assignment in Alaska.
for consideration....
tesla
Nikola Tesla (1856 - 1943) - Master of Resonance
It was an innocent experiment. The year was 1898 and Tesla attached a small vibrator to an iron column in his laboratory located in New York City. He closed a switch and it began vibrating. He had noticed that at certain frequencies specific pieces of equipment in the room would start to jiggle. Changing the frequency would move the jiggle to another part of the room. Unfortunately, he had not taken into account the fact that the column ran downward into the foundation beneath the building. His vibrations were being transmitted all over Manhattan.
For Tesla, the first hint of trouble came when the walls and floor began to heave (ref 1). He immediately stopped the experiment just as the police came rushing through the door. It seems he had started a small earthquake in his neighborhood which had smashed windows, swayed buildings, and sent panicky neighbors rushing into the streets. The police fingered Tesla because they had frequently responded to complaints about his unusual activities. It was another of Tesla's experiments in resonance.
tesla
Nikola Tesla (1856 - 1943) - Master of Resonance
It was an innocent experiment. The year was 1898 and Tesla attached a small vibrator to an iron column in his laboratory located in New York City. He closed a switch and it began vibrating. He had noticed that at certain frequencies specific pieces of equipment in the room would start to jiggle. Changing the frequency would move the jiggle to another part of the room. Unfortunately, he had not taken into account the fact that the column ran downward into the foundation beneath the building. His vibrations were being transmitted all over Manhattan.
For Tesla, the first hint of trouble came when the walls and floor began to heave (ref 1). He immediately stopped the experiment just as the police came rushing through the door. It seems he had started a small earthquake in his neighborhood which had smashed windows, swayed buildings, and sent panicky neighbors rushing into the streets. The police fingered Tesla because they had frequently responded to complaints about his unusual activities. It was another of Tesla's experiments in resonance.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 14 2006, 10:22 AM)
Were is the burning aluminum?
Or
What point are you trying to make?
This is the kind of response that makes your side look so stupid.
Wheres the aluminum in this picture?
Did someone cut it off?
USE YOUR HEAD
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 14 2006, 10:42 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 14 2006, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 14 2006, 06:20 AM)
Aluminum airliners melt WITHOUT hitting a building first...
...so what make YOU think they wouldn't melt after hitting an office building?
Note, this plane was not bombed. It skidded off the runway and into the grass, caught fire then MELTED.
Nuff said..
Were is the burning aluminum?
Or
What point are you trying to make?
Yep...
reasonwhy...
He's a sharp as a bag of jello, this one
What happened to the aluminum moron...
What's a matter? Cat got your tongue?
Heh!
Well I appreciate the up front position. If you knew anything about high explosives you wouldn't say those things. The event we saw cannot be created any other way.
Look at that mechanical floor going off in a line. The uniformity of that explosion needs explanation. How about explaining how that was done that recognizes the event and the simple rules of demolition, the simple rules of containment to effect breakage?
How about starting with an accurate concept of the towers structure?
Realize, NO ONE here has been able to explain why the supposed steel core columns are never seen in the inner core area. They have all failed to accurately define what structure they think existed How can they possibly assert from a forensic position how it was demoed or not, without addressing the structure that stood?
Either they are wasting their time and know it, like it, want others to do it, or they are sincerely seeking factual explanations. If they are seeking facts in explanation of the event, you will notice they don't bash the scenario I've put forth. They see that there is no forthcoming explanation for the fact that the supposed steel core columns are not seen and realize that IF they want the truth, they should not bash the concrete core because there is far more evidence supporting it than there is for mutiple steel core columns.
Your perceptional skills may be inadequate or undeveloped if you cannot use the evidence to perceive the facts. That is supported by your own statement because you are confused enough to equate the presence of facts supporting the scenario I put forth with the notion of holograms which has no credible evidence whatsoever.
Well I appreciate the up front position. If you knew anything about high explosives you wouldn't say those things. The event we saw cannot be created any other way.
Look at that mechanical floor going off in a line. The uniformity of that explosion needs explanation. How about explaining how that was done that recognizes the event and the simple rules of demolition, the simple rules of containment to effect breakage?
How about starting with an accurate concept of the towers structure?
Realize, NO ONE here has been able to explain why the supposed steel core columns are never seen in the inner core area. They have all failed to accurately define what structure they think existed How can they possibly assert from a forensic position how it was demoed or not, without addressing the structure that stood?
Either they are wasting their time and know it, like it, want others to do it, or they are sincerely seeking factual explanations. If they are seeking facts in explanation of the event, you will notice they don't bash the scenario I've put forth. They see that there is no forthcoming explanation for the fact that the supposed steel core columns are not seen and realize that IF they want the truth, they should not bash the concrete core because there is far more evidence supporting it than there is for mutiple steel core columns.
Your perceptional skills may be inadequate or undeveloped if you cannot use the evidence to perceive the facts. That is supported by your own statement because you are confused enough to equate the presence of facts supporting the scenario I put forth with the notion of holograms which has no credible evidence whatsoever.
Sorry pal but one really has to dig deep to not respond to such with sheer ridicule.
Dig deep for reason, for logic and uses of available information that is not contaminated by deceptions, forget ridicule in the case of learning the truth, it is useless. It is only useful in defense of ridicule.
Reply by non Sense...
Reply by non Sense...
This is the kind of response that makes your side look so stupid.
Wheres the aluminum in this picture?
Who looks stupid ? I'll take a wild guess at your question CS ---
It melted in the fire?
As previously noted aircraft alloys will melt (depending on the particular alloy) at between 475 C - 600 C.
That is why both reasonwhy and I made fun of your question. Our discussion left off with the topic of BURNING aluminum, not melting aluminum.
You seem to imply that they are the same process, which is quite far from the truth. As I have already pointed out it takes temperatures in the range of 2000 C to ignite (burn... catch on fire) aluminum. Even NIST states...
This fact presents a 'wee bit' of a conundrum for both NIST and its supporters. If the object shown here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/040thermZM.jpg
...IS burning aircraft aluminum (as implied by NIST), then the obvious question is - how do you propose office and plane debris reached such exhorbitant temperatures to catch this aluminum on fire?
The second question is...
Why would that 'aircraft aluminum' not just melt and flow away from the fire when it reached 500 - 600 C instead of remaining as a solid object to continue absorbing heat until it reached 2000 C ?
And thirdly...
IF the noted object WERE burning aluminum, then in theory the temperatures at that area would be reaching a temperature to ignite ALL the aluminum in the area, such as the facade cladding which is directly above it.
Now, how about spending some time thinking about that before calling US idiots,and please let us know when you come up with a rational answer that fits all three proposed questions.
I do want to apologize for calling you NON Sense, it's just that I think it is an aberration of the meaning of common sense to apply that name to you.
Reply by non Sense...
Reply by non Sense...
This is the kind of response that makes your side look so stupid.
Wheres the aluminum in this picture?
Who looks stupid ? I'll take a wild guess at your question CS ---
It melted in the fire?
As previously noted aircraft alloys will melt (depending on the particular alloy) at between 475 C - 600 C.
That is why both reasonwhy and I made fun of your question. Our discussion left off with the topic of BURNING aluminum, not melting aluminum.
You seem to imply that they are the same process, which is quite far from the truth. As I have already pointed out it takes temperatures in the range of 2000 C to ignite (burn... catch on fire) aluminum. Even NIST states...
This fact presents a 'wee bit' of a conundrum for both NIST and its supporters. If the object shown here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/040thermZM.jpg
...IS burning aircraft aluminum, then the obvious question is how do you propose office and plane debris reached such exhorbitant temperatures to catch this aluminum on fire?
The second question is...
Why would that 'aircraft aluminum' not just melt and flow away from the fire when it reached 500 - 600 C instead of remaining as a solid object to continue absorbing heat until it reached 2000 C ?
And thirdly...
IF the noted object WERE burning aluminum, then in theory the temperatures at that area would be reaching a temperature to ignite ALL the aluminum in the area, such as the facade cladding which is directly above it.
Now, how about spending some time thinking about that before calling US idiots,and please let us know when you come up with a rational answer that fits all three proposed questions.
I do want to apologize for calling you NON Sense, it's just that I think it is an aberration of the meaning of common sense to apply that name to you.
MORON, as usual, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
You're just pulling crap out of your A$$ and calling it gold.
Thanks for making my case again though. Heh!
If aluminum melts before it catches fire and it isn't melting down in that corner somewhere then you just make my case. THAT ISN'T ALUMINUM. But then you knew that...
Now the other stuff pouring out of the north side might be.
I can imagine the plane coming to a stop in that corner and contents catching fire. Who knows what was in that plane. Regardless, it had the most consistent fire of the event.
The fires below buckle the floors above and the stuff that IS aluminum DOES fall out the north side.
YOU, ONCE AGAIN, choose to be selective with your photos in your usual deceptive yet idiotic manor. Any fool can see past your games.
Whatever is on fire on the left...
...is what gave off the steady heat to keep the aluminum melted in a pool. Once the floor buckled it could have created a lip low enough to pour the aluminum out. Or maybe enough melted aluminum pooled to go over to side. Either way it makes more sense than...
THERMITE/THERMOBARIC DEVICE WHICH JUST HAPPENS TO BE IN THE EXACT PLACE THE AIRLINER STOPPED AND IS AS VOLITLE AS MOUTH WASH...
As Randi Rhodes says.. "Yeah, right, I'll buy that, I'm there!"
It is NIST who implies it is aluminum, are you calling NIST 'MORONS' ?
It is NIST who implies it is aluminum, are you calling NIST 'MORONS' ?
more non SENSE
Now the other stuff pouring out of the north side might be. I can imagine the plane coming to a stop in that corner and contents catching fire. Who knows what was in that plane.
No, It has been shown by empirical experiments that the molten material can not be aluminum. You can believe Dr. Greenings speculations all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that his speculations have been refuted by peer-review and actual scientific experiment.
You say... 'who knows what was in the plane?'... are you implying that there may have been exotic devices within the plane that could ignite and cause temperatures in the range of 2000 C? Apart from that we know there was nothing 'normal' in the plane that could cause such high temperatures. We do know that the anomalous burning object was creating temperatures in that range simply by the color and intensity of light being emitted. NIST states...
Are you now saying NIST is wrong and that it wasn't metal burning? Can you suggest a metal that might have been in the plane and which might have ignited at such low temperatures? We know that the temperatures of the fire itself could NOT have been hotter that 600 degrees, otherwise the aluminum building cladding which was in the fire would have melted.
Are you now saying NIST is wrong and that it wasn't metal burning? Can you suggest a metal that might have been in the plane and which might have ignited at such low temperatures? We know that the temperatures of the fire itself could NOT have been hotter that 600 degrees, otherwise the aluminum building cladding which was in the fire would have melted.
more non Sense
The fires below buckle the floors above and the stuff that IS aluminum DOES fall out the north side.
What facts do you present to support such statements? As has already been shown the speculation that it 'may' have been molten aluminum has been proven to be erroneous.
Try to stick with objective scientific debate... after all this is a physics forum. I am not being deceptive at all - the photo comes from NIST. I am not being selective at all - there are two photos which show the burning metal.
Try to stick with objective scientific debate... after all this is a physics forum. I am not being deceptive at all - the photo comes from NIST. I am not being selective at all - there are two photos which show the burning metal.
repeating the mantra once again...
Whatever is on fire on the left... NIST Fig 9-72...is what gave off the steady heat to keep the aluminum melted in a pool. Once the floor buckled it could have created a lip low enough to pour the aluminum out. Or maybe enough melted aluminum pooled to go over to side.
I'm sorry, but you have nothing to support such statements apart from your own unscientific bias. It has been shown that the molten metal can NOT be aluminum which is pouring out of the building. It was a plausible theory presented by NIST that it 'might' have been aluminum, unfortunately for the truth they did not perform any experiments to test such a hypothesis. These tests have now been performed and have shown that it is highly doubtful according to metallurgical facts that the molten material was aluminum.
Besides that - you have completely ignored the original questions. You claim... "whatever is on fire"... led to 'molten metal', but simply brush off the fact that nothing 'normal' in the building or on the plane can account for the burning metal object (which was obviously creating temperatures HIGH above what could have been possibly accounted for in such a fire.
You are like a chicken desperately trying to escape the fox in the henhouse, dodging and darting about squawking shrilly... but in actual fact your obfuscations are simply a means to escape the truth (which you can't handle).
You have failed to refute the point... just remember that.
Hasta la Vista... Chicken.
Any other NIST supporters care to TRY to address this anomalous burning metal question scientifically... (in some way that can be peer-reviewed)?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
...so what make YOU think they wouldn't melt after hitting an office building?
Note, this plane was not bombed. It skidded off the runway and into the grass, caught fire then MELTED.
Nuff said..
Were is the burning aluminum?
Or
What point are you trying to make?
Yep...
reasonwhy...
He's a sharp as a bag of jello, this one
What happened to the aluminum moron...
What's a matter? Cat got your tongue?
Heh!
Arthur, as the resident expert on flying contraptions, can you tell me if airliners use regular aluminum or an exotic aluminum to save weight?
You know where I'm going with this...
You know where I'm going with this...
QUOTE
Christophera, I consider the theory of preplanted explosives at the time of construction to be in the realm fantasy and of equal consideration as holographic aircraft images
Well I appreciate the up front position. If you knew anything about high explosives you wouldn't say those things. The event we saw cannot be created any other way.
Look at that mechanical floor going off in a line. The uniformity of that explosion needs explanation. How about explaining how that was done that recognizes the event and the simple rules of demolition, the simple rules of containment to effect breakage?
How about starting with an accurate concept of the towers structure?
Realize, NO ONE here has been able to explain why the supposed steel core columns are never seen in the inner core area. They have all failed to accurately define what structure they think existed How can they possibly assert from a forensic position how it was demoed or not, without addressing the structure that stood?
Either they are wasting their time and know it, like it, want others to do it, or they are sincerely seeking factual explanations. If they are seeking facts in explanation of the event, you will notice they don't bash the scenario I've put forth. They see that there is no forthcoming explanation for the fact that the supposed steel core columns are not seen and realize that IF they want the truth, they should not bash the concrete core because there is far more evidence supporting it than there is for mutiple steel core columns.
Your perceptional skills may be inadequate or undeveloped if you cannot use the evidence to perceive the facts. That is supported by your own statement because you are confused enough to equate the presence of facts supporting the scenario I put forth with the notion of holograms which has no credible evidence whatsoever.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Christophera, I consider the theory of preplanted explosives at the time of construction to be in the realm fantasy and of equal consideration as holographic aircraft images |
Well I appreciate the up front position. If you knew anything about high explosives you wouldn't say those things. The event we saw cannot be created any other way.
Look at that mechanical floor going off in a line. The uniformity of that explosion needs explanation. How about explaining how that was done that recognizes the event and the simple rules of demolition, the simple rules of containment to effect breakage?
How about starting with an accurate concept of the towers structure?
Realize, NO ONE here has been able to explain why the supposed steel core columns are never seen in the inner core area. They have all failed to accurately define what structure they think existed How can they possibly assert from a forensic position how it was demoed or not, without addressing the structure that stood?
Either they are wasting their time and know it, like it, want others to do it, or they are sincerely seeking factual explanations. If they are seeking facts in explanation of the event, you will notice they don't bash the scenario I've put forth. They see that there is no forthcoming explanation for the fact that the supposed steel core columns are not seen and realize that IF they want the truth, they should not bash the concrete core because there is far more evidence supporting it than there is for mutiple steel core columns.
Your perceptional skills may be inadequate or undeveloped if you cannot use the evidence to perceive the facts. That is supported by your own statement because you are confused enough to equate the presence of facts supporting the scenario I put forth with the notion of holograms which has no credible evidence whatsoever.
Sorry pal but one really has to dig deep to not respond to such with sheer ridicule.
Dig deep for reason, for logic and uses of available information that is not contaminated by deceptions, forget ridicule in the case of learning the truth, it is useless. It is only useful in defense of ridicule.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 14 2006, 12:27 PM)
I think the disinformation team is on there way to a new assignment in Alaska.
Don't forget your coat.
Don't forget your coat.
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy
Where is the burning aluminum?
Or
What point are you trying to make?
Where is the burning aluminum?
Or
What point are you trying to make?
Reply by non Sense...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by reasonwhy Where is the burning aluminum? Or What point are you trying to make? |
Reply by non Sense...
This is the kind of response that makes your side look so stupid.
Wheres the aluminum in this picture?
Who looks stupid ? I'll take a wild guess at your question CS ---
It melted in the fire?
As previously noted aircraft alloys will melt (depending on the particular alloy) at between 475 C - 600 C.
That is why both reasonwhy and I made fun of your question. Our discussion left off with the topic of BURNING aluminum, not melting aluminum.
You seem to imply that they are the same process, which is quite far from the truth. As I have already pointed out it takes temperatures in the range of 2000 C to ignite (burn... catch on fire) aluminum. Even NIST states...
QUOTE
"Aluminum will burn, but in normal fires it usually melts instead because the metal surface is protected by an oxide layer that must be breeched before ignition can take place. Aluminum oxide melts at high temperatures that are not typically reached in normal fires.
This fact presents a 'wee bit' of a conundrum for both NIST and its supporters. If the object shown here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/040thermZM.jpg
...IS burning aircraft aluminum (as implied by NIST), then the obvious question is - how do you propose office and plane debris reached such exhorbitant temperatures to catch this aluminum on fire?
The second question is...
Why would that 'aircraft aluminum' not just melt and flow away from the fire when it reached 500 - 600 C instead of remaining as a solid object to continue absorbing heat until it reached 2000 C ?
And thirdly...
IF the noted object WERE burning aluminum, then in theory the temperatures at that area would be reaching a temperature to ignite ALL the aluminum in the area, such as the facade cladding which is directly above it.
Now, how about spending some time thinking about that before calling US idiots,and please let us know when you come up with a rational answer that fits all three proposed questions.
I do want to apologize for calling you NON Sense, it's just that I think it is an aberration of the meaning of common sense to apply that name to you.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 14 2006, 02:22 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy
Where is the burning aluminum?
Or
What point are you trying to make?
Where is the burning aluminum?
Or
What point are you trying to make?
Reply by non Sense...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by reasonwhy Where is the burning aluminum? Or What point are you trying to make? |
Reply by non Sense...
This is the kind of response that makes your side look so stupid.
Wheres the aluminum in this picture?
Who looks stupid ? I'll take a wild guess at your question CS ---
It melted in the fire?
As previously noted aircraft alloys will melt (depending on the particular alloy) at between 475 C - 600 C.
That is why both reasonwhy and I made fun of your question. Our discussion left off with the topic of BURNING aluminum, not melting aluminum.
You seem to imply that they are the same process, which is quite far from the truth. As I have already pointed out it takes temperatures in the range of 2000 C to ignite (burn... catch on fire) aluminum. Even NIST states...
QUOTE
"Aluminum will burn, but in normal fires it usually melts instead because the metal surface is protected by an oxide layer that must be breeched before ignition can take place. Aluminum oxide melts at high temperatures that are not typically reached in normal fires.
This fact presents a 'wee bit' of a conundrum for both NIST and its supporters. If the object shown here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/040thermZM.jpg
...IS burning aircraft aluminum, then the obvious question is how do you propose office and plane debris reached such exhorbitant temperatures to catch this aluminum on fire?
The second question is...
Why would that 'aircraft aluminum' not just melt and flow away from the fire when it reached 500 - 600 C instead of remaining as a solid object to continue absorbing heat until it reached 2000 C ?
And thirdly...
IF the noted object WERE burning aluminum, then in theory the temperatures at that area would be reaching a temperature to ignite ALL the aluminum in the area, such as the facade cladding which is directly above it.
Now, how about spending some time thinking about that before calling US idiots,and please let us know when you come up with a rational answer that fits all three proposed questions.
I do want to apologize for calling you NON Sense, it's just that I think it is an aberration of the meaning of common sense to apply that name to you.
MORON, as usual, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
You're just pulling crap out of your A$$ and calling it gold.
Thanks for making my case again though. Heh!
If aluminum melts before it catches fire and it isn't melting down in that corner somewhere then you just make my case. THAT ISN'T ALUMINUM. But then you knew that...
Now the other stuff pouring out of the north side might be.
I can imagine the plane coming to a stop in that corner and contents catching fire. Who knows what was in that plane. Regardless, it had the most consistent fire of the event.
The fires below buckle the floors above and the stuff that IS aluminum DOES fall out the north side.
YOU, ONCE AGAIN, choose to be selective with your photos in your usual deceptive yet idiotic manor. Any fool can see past your games.
Whatever is on fire on the left...
...is what gave off the steady heat to keep the aluminum melted in a pool. Once the floor buckled it could have created a lip low enough to pour the aluminum out. Or maybe enough melted aluminum pooled to go over to side. Either way it makes more sense than...
THERMITE/THERMOBARIC DEVICE WHICH JUST HAPPENS TO BE IN THE EXACT PLACE THE AIRLINER STOPPED AND IS AS VOLITLE AS MOUTH WASH...
As Randi Rhodes says.. "Yeah, right, I'll buy that, I'm there!"
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeoyr81/lostinventions.html
Manmade earthquake
Tesla was fascinated with the power of resonance and experimented with it not only electrically but on the mechanical plane as well. In his Manhattan lab he built mechanical vibrators and tested their powers. One experiment got out of hand.
Tesla attached a powerful little vibrator driven by compressed air to a steel pillar. Leaving it there, he went about his business. Meanwhile, down the street, a violent quaking built up, shaking down plaster, bursting plumbing, cracking widows, and breaking heavy machinery off its anchorage. Tesla's vibrator had found the resonant frequency of a deep sandy layer of subsoil beneath his building, setting up an earthquake.
Soon Tesla's own building began to quake, and, just at the moment the police burst into the lab, Tesla was seen smashing the device with a sledgehammer, the only way he could promptly stop it. In a similar experiment, on an evening walk through the city, Tesla attached a battery-powered vibrator, described as being the size of an alarm clock, to the steel framework of a building under construction and, adjusting it to a suitable frequency, set the structure into resonant vibration. The structure shook, and so did the earth under his feet.
Later Tesla boasted that he could shake down the Empire State Building with such a device, and, as if this claim were not extravagant enough, he went on to state that a large-scale resonant vibration was capable of splitting the Earth in half. No details of Tesla's vibrators are available, but they probably resembled one of Tesla's reciprocating engines (such as Patent No. 511,916). These exploited the elasticity of gases, just as his electrical vibrators, like the Tesla coil, exploit the elasticity of the electric medium.
Manmade earthquake
Tesla was fascinated with the power of resonance and experimented with it not only electrically but on the mechanical plane as well. In his Manhattan lab he built mechanical vibrators and tested their powers. One experiment got out of hand.
Tesla attached a powerful little vibrator driven by compressed air to a steel pillar. Leaving it there, he went about his business. Meanwhile, down the street, a violent quaking built up, shaking down plaster, bursting plumbing, cracking widows, and breaking heavy machinery off its anchorage. Tesla's vibrator had found the resonant frequency of a deep sandy layer of subsoil beneath his building, setting up an earthquake.
Soon Tesla's own building began to quake, and, just at the moment the police burst into the lab, Tesla was seen smashing the device with a sledgehammer, the only way he could promptly stop it. In a similar experiment, on an evening walk through the city, Tesla attached a battery-powered vibrator, described as being the size of an alarm clock, to the steel framework of a building under construction and, adjusting it to a suitable frequency, set the structure into resonant vibration. The structure shook, and so did the earth under his feet.
Later Tesla boasted that he could shake down the Empire State Building with such a device, and, as if this claim were not extravagant enough, he went on to state that a large-scale resonant vibration was capable of splitting the Earth in half. No details of Tesla's vibrators are available, but they probably resembled one of Tesla's reciprocating engines (such as Patent No. 511,916). These exploited the elasticity of gases, just as his electrical vibrators, like the Tesla coil, exploit the elasticity of the electric medium.
QUOTE
by non Sense
If aluminum melts before it catches fire and it isn't melting down in that corner somewhere then you just make my case. THAT ISN'T ALUMINUM.
If aluminum melts before it catches fire and it isn't melting down in that corner somewhere then you just make my case. THAT ISN'T ALUMINUM.
It is NIST who implies it is aluminum, are you calling NIST 'MORONS' ?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by non Sense If aluminum melts before it catches fire and it isn't melting down in that corner somewhere then you just make my case. THAT ISN'T ALUMINUM. |
It is NIST who implies it is aluminum, are you calling NIST 'MORONS' ?
more non SENSE
Now the other stuff pouring out of the north side might be. I can imagine the plane coming to a stop in that corner and contents catching fire. Who knows what was in that plane.
No, It has been shown by empirical experiments that the molten material can not be aluminum. You can believe Dr. Greenings speculations all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that his speculations have been refuted by peer-review and actual scientific experiment.
You say... 'who knows what was in the plane?'... are you implying that there may have been exotic devices within the plane that could ignite and cause temperatures in the range of 2000 C? Apart from that we know there was nothing 'normal' in the plane that could cause such high temperatures. We do know that the anomalous burning object was creating temperatures in that range simply by the color and intensity of light being emitted. NIST states...
QUOTE
The brightness of the flame, along with the white smoke, suggests that some type of metal is burning.
Are you now saying NIST is wrong and that it wasn't metal burning? Can you suggest a metal that might have been in the plane and which might have ignited at such low temperatures? We know that the temperatures of the fire itself could NOT have been hotter that 600 degrees, otherwise the aluminum building cladding which was in the fire would have melted.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The brightness of the flame, along with the white smoke, suggests that some type of metal is burning. |
Are you now saying NIST is wrong and that it wasn't metal burning? Can you suggest a metal that might have been in the plane and which might have ignited at such low temperatures? We know that the temperatures of the fire itself could NOT have been hotter that 600 degrees, otherwise the aluminum building cladding which was in the fire would have melted.
more non Sense
The fires below buckle the floors above and the stuff that IS aluminum DOES fall out the north side.
What facts do you present to support such statements? As has already been shown the speculation that it 'may' have been molten aluminum has been proven to be erroneous.
QUOTE
now resorting to insult and false allegations
YOU, ONCE AGAIN, choose to be selective with your photos in your usual deceptive yet idiotic manor. Any fool can see past your games.
YOU, ONCE AGAIN, choose to be selective with your photos in your usual deceptive yet idiotic manor. Any fool can see past your games.
Try to stick with objective scientific debate... after all this is a physics forum. I am not being deceptive at all - the photo comes from NIST. I am not being selective at all - there are two photos which show the burning metal.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| now resorting to insult and false allegations YOU, ONCE AGAIN, choose to be selective with your photos in your usual deceptive yet idiotic manor. Any fool can see past your games. |
Try to stick with objective scientific debate... after all this is a physics forum. I am not being deceptive at all - the photo comes from NIST. I am not being selective at all - there are two photos which show the burning metal.
repeating the mantra once again...
Whatever is on fire on the left... NIST Fig 9-72...is what gave off the steady heat to keep the aluminum melted in a pool. Once the floor buckled it could have created a lip low enough to pour the aluminum out. Or maybe enough melted aluminum pooled to go over to side.
I'm sorry, but you have nothing to support such statements apart from your own unscientific bias. It has been shown that the molten metal can NOT be aluminum which is pouring out of the building. It was a plausible theory presented by NIST that it 'might' have been aluminum, unfortunately for the truth they did not perform any experiments to test such a hypothesis. These tests have now been performed and have shown that it is highly doubtful according to metallurgical facts that the molten material was aluminum.
Besides that - you have completely ignored the original questions. You claim... "whatever is on fire"... led to 'molten metal', but simply brush off the fact that nothing 'normal' in the building or on the plane can account for the burning metal object (which was obviously creating temperatures HIGH above what could have been possibly accounted for in such a fire.
You are like a chicken desperately trying to escape the fox in the henhouse, dodging and darting about squawking shrilly... but in actual fact your obfuscations are simply a means to escape the truth (which you can't handle).
You have failed to refute the point... just remember that.
Hasta la Vista... Chicken.
Any other NIST supporters care to TRY to address this anomalous burning metal question scientifically... (in some way that can be peer-reviewed)?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 13 2006, 06:28 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 13 2006, 11:30 AM)
Any problem with the basic physics here below? -
Projectile motion VIDEO segment from 911 Eyewitness
http://www.911truestory.com/ProjectileMotion.wmv
The basic physics of Projectile Motion?
No.
Applying that simplistic formula to ejecta from the chaotic collapse of the towers and from that simplistic analysis concluding that EXPLOSIVES had to be involved?
Yes
Arthur
So there is no problem with the basic physics.
The question that ensues from the application of the basic physics, which you agree there is no problem with is -
Where did the energy come from to eject such heavy objects over 600ft?
Given that there are multi reports from eyewitnesses of explosions.
Given that there is video evidence of explosions.
Given that there are people PHYSICally hurt from explosions.
Given that there is evidence under all three buildings pointing to explosives.
Given that no such buildings have ever fell in that manner absent explosives.
Given that explosives could account for all anomalies.
Given that the manner and speed with which the buildings meant little resistance - therefore no alternate source of energy -
I would go as far as to say if we take Occams razor, leaving aside Ned Kelly's Blunderbuss, ........
Projectile motion VIDEO segment from 911 Eyewitness
http://www.911truestory.com/ProjectileMotion.wmv
The basic physics of Projectile Motion?
No.
Applying that simplistic formula to ejecta from the chaotic collapse of the towers and from that simplistic analysis concluding that EXPLOSIVES had to be involved?
Yes
Arthur
So there is no problem with the basic physics.
The question that ensues from the application of the basic physics, which you agree there is no problem with is -
Where did the energy come from to eject such heavy objects over 600ft?
Given that there are multi reports from eyewitnesses of explosions.
Given that there is video evidence of explosions.
Given that there are people PHYSICally hurt from explosions.
Given that there is evidence under all three buildings pointing to explosives.
Given that no such buildings have ever fell in that manner absent explosives.
Given that explosives could account for all anomalies.
Given that the manner and speed with which the buildings meant little resistance - therefore no alternate source of energy -
I would go as far as to say if we take Occams razor, leaving aside Ned Kelly's Blunderbuss, ........
It would help to have some video of that bright area of the northeast corner. Difficult to say what it is from only a still. Apparently it wasn't burning for very long. The pic says 9:37am. I didn't notice it in the videos a few minutes up to the time of the collapse and haven't seen it in stills taken at other times. The shape can be misleading if it's from only a still with pixels saturated.
One would have to look at all the materials in the aircraft, building, and offices. That small bright feature probably wasn't bulk aluminum. It could have been a shred of aluminum that burned briefly. Magnesium from one of the wheels or perhaps a magnesium containing alloy of a component of the aircraft is another possibility. Oxygen cannisters from the aircraft is plausible. It could have even been lithium from batteries in laptops on the plane or in the office areas. If it had been a large amount of molten Al or other metal, it would have been dripping.
One would have to look at all the materials in the aircraft, building, and offices. That small bright feature probably wasn't bulk aluminum. It could have been a shred of aluminum that burned briefly. Magnesium from one of the wheels or perhaps a magnesium containing alloy of a component of the aircraft is another possibility. Oxygen cannisters from the aircraft is plausible. It could have even been lithium from batteries in laptops on the plane or in the office areas. If it had been a large amount of molten Al or other metal, it would have been dripping.
From what I read in NIST, it didn't conclude or imply that the bright spot was necessarily aluminum. NIST said it appeared to be a metal burning since it appeared brighter and had light colored smoke associated with it.
The rebuttal by Jones about Greening's assertions about thermite reactions doesn't prove that molten metal pouring from the north side can't be aluminum. That was a debate between Jones and Greening regarding whether or not thermite reactions could have taken place between aluminum and other materials in the building. The metal that poured out the window is a different issue.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 14 2006, 09:49 PM)
It would help to have some video of that bright area of the northeast corner. Difficult to say what it is from only a still. Apparently it wasn't burning for very long. The pic says 9:37am. I didn't notice it in the videos a few minutes up to the time of the collapse and haven't seen it in stills taken at other times. The shape can be misleading if it's from only a still with pixels saturated.
One would have to look at all the materials in the aircraft, building, and offices. That small bright feature probably wasn't bulk aluminum. It could have been a shred of aluminum that burned briefly. Magnesium from one of the wheels or perhaps a magnesium containing alloy of a component of the aircraft is another possibility. Oxygen cannisters from the aircraft is plausible. It could have even been lithium from batteries in laptops on the plane or in the office areas. If it had been a large amount of molten Al or other metal, it would have been dripping.
*Applause* Now that's an intelligent reply.
Thermite in the context of my reply is a device placed ahead of time to bring down the towers.
Something in the very corner burned from the time the plane hit to almost an hour later.
One would have to look at all the materials in the aircraft, building, and offices. That small bright feature probably wasn't bulk aluminum. It could have been a shred of aluminum that burned briefly. Magnesium from one of the wheels or perhaps a magnesium containing alloy of a component of the aircraft is another possibility. Oxygen cannisters from the aircraft is plausible. It could have even been lithium from batteries in laptops on the plane or in the office areas. If it had been a large amount of molten Al or other metal, it would have been dripping.
*Applause* Now that's an intelligent reply.
Thermite in the context of my reply is a device placed ahead of time to bring down the towers.
Something in the very corner burned from the time the plane hit to almost an hour later.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 14 2006, 09:51 PM)
From what I read in NIST, it didn't conclude or imply that the bright spot was necessarily aluminum. NIST said it appeared to be a metal burning since it appeared brighter and had light colored smoke associated with it.
Exactly....
...yet the questions Foxx poses on his website are all based on the premise that NIST "alleges" the burning metal is aluminum:
1 -- How is it possible that a hydrocarbon fire could reach temperatures in the 2000 C range?
2 -- Why did this alleged 'burning' aircraft aluminum not melt and run away once reaching 500 to 600 C ? ... and
3 -- IF, as NIST alleges, this WAS burning aluminum, why has not the aluminum facade cladding in close proximity started melting or burning?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
Explain yourself, Foxx.
Why the deception??
Exactly....
...yet the questions Foxx poses on his website are all based on the premise that NIST "alleges" the burning metal is aluminum:
1 -- How is it possible that a hydrocarbon fire could reach temperatures in the 2000 C range?
2 -- Why did this alleged 'burning' aircraft aluminum not melt and run away once reaching 500 to 600 C ? ... and
3 -- IF, as NIST alleges, this WAS burning aluminum, why has not the aluminum facade cladding in close proximity started melting or burning?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
Explain yourself, Foxx.
Why the deception??
QUOTE (Coastal+Mar 14 2006, 10:26 PM)
Explain yourself, Foxx.
Why the deception??
Exactly, and who does he think hes trying to kid?
Why the deception??
Exactly, and who does he think hes trying to kid?
QUOTE (Coastal+Mar 14 2006, 10:26 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 14 2006, 09:51 PM)
From what I read in NIST, it didn't conclude or imply that the bright spot was necessarily aluminum. NIST said it appeared to be a metal burning since it appeared brighter and had light colored smoke associated with it.
Exactly....
...yet the questions Foxx poses on his website are all based on the premise that NIST "alleges" the burning metal is aluminum:
1 -- How is it possible that a hydrocarbon fire could reach temperatures in the 2000 C range?
2 -- Why did this alleged 'burning' aircraft aluminum not melt and run away once reaching 500 to 600 C ? ... and
3 -- IF, as NIST alleges, this WAS burning aluminum, why has not the aluminum facade cladding in close proximity started melting or burning?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
Explain yourself, Foxx.
Why the deception??
I wish I had more time to post these days but quickly.
But I believe I posted some of this before:
NIST stated some answers.
The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had orginally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed.
Also see
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion...HLXBQn0ZEPWxD8A
Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.
In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.
Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.
"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."
Exactly....
...yet the questions Foxx poses on his website are all based on the premise that NIST "alleges" the burning metal is aluminum:
1 -- How is it possible that a hydrocarbon fire could reach temperatures in the 2000 C range?
2 -- Why did this alleged 'burning' aircraft aluminum not melt and run away once reaching 500 to 600 C ? ... and
3 -- IF, as NIST alleges, this WAS burning aluminum, why has not the aluminum facade cladding in close proximity started melting or burning?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
Explain yourself, Foxx.
Why the deception??
I wish I had more time to post these days but quickly.
But I believe I posted some of this before:
NIST stated some answers.
The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had orginally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed.
Also see
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion...HLXBQn0ZEPWxD8A
Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.
In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.
Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.
"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."
I would also like to add that NIST suggests that the temp was around 1000C in this area.
"For example Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increses. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area."
"For example Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increses. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area."
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 14 2006, 10:40 PM)
QUOTE (Coastal+Mar 14 2006, 10:26 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 14 2006, 09:51 PM)
From what I read in NIST, it didn't conclude or imply that the bright spot was necessarily aluminum. NIST said it appeared to be a metal burning since it appeared brighter and had light colored smoke associated with it.
Exactly....
...yet the questions Foxx poses on his website are all based on the premise that NIST "alleges" the burning metal is aluminum:
1 -- How is it possible that a hydrocarbon fire could reach temperatures in the 2000 C range?
2 -- Why did this alleged 'burning' aircraft aluminum not melt and run away once reaching 500 to 600 C ? ... and
3 -- IF, as NIST alleges, this WAS burning aluminum, why has not the aluminum facade cladding in close proximity started melting or burning?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
Explain yourself, Foxx.
Why the deception??
I wish I had more time to post these days but quickly.
But I believe I posted some of this before:
NIST stated some answers.
The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had orginally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed.
Also see
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion...HLXBQn0ZEPWxD8A
Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.
In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.
Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.
"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."
WOW, I just looked at the photos and came to almost the same scenario. It's freaking common sense!
Exactly....
...yet the questions Foxx poses on his website are all based on the premise that NIST "alleges" the burning metal is aluminum:
1 -- How is it possible that a hydrocarbon fire could reach temperatures in the 2000 C range?
2 -- Why did this alleged 'burning' aircraft aluminum not melt and run away once reaching 500 to 600 C ? ... and
3 -- IF, as NIST alleges, this WAS burning aluminum, why has not the aluminum facade cladding in close proximity started melting or burning?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
Explain yourself, Foxx.
Why the deception??
I wish I had more time to post these days but quickly.
But I believe I posted some of this before:
NIST stated some answers.
The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had orginally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed.
Also see
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion...HLXBQn0ZEPWxD8A
Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.
In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.
Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.
"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."
WOW, I just looked at the photos and came to almost the same scenario. It's freaking common sense!
A Structural Engineers perspective:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
This paper covers many of the contentious issues in this thread succinctly even though it was published over 4 years ago. My understanding is no new findings or evidence has emerged since to prove the buildings were 'pulled'.
But I am always open-minded, I dont care what the cause is so long as its proven to be correct in the final analysis. I think its right to question official reports and have a healthy debate on this defining moment in history. I'm glad there are loads of conspiracy sites but I personally need much more persuasion that a CD was part of the plan for that day.
Again I rely on you guys for the science...let me know if you have any thoughts on the paper or the authors.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
This paper covers many of the contentious issues in this thread succinctly even though it was published over 4 years ago. My understanding is no new findings or evidence has emerged since to prove the buildings were 'pulled'.
But I am always open-minded, I dont care what the cause is so long as its proven to be correct in the final analysis. I think its right to question official reports and have a healthy debate on this defining moment in history. I'm glad there are loads of conspiracy sites but I personally need much more persuasion that a CD was part of the plan for that day.
Again I rely on you guys for the science...let me know if you have any thoughts on the paper or the authors.
.
Brief recap of CTer asserions and others' comments:
(1) Cters say 9/11 fires were not as fierce as 'blowtorch'-like 1975 fires in Tower, where fires spread UP via telephone cable etc 'riser' conduits/shafts.
Others point out that:
- if the 1975 fires could spread "LIKE BLOWTORCHES" through shafts/conduits in 1975 fires, then they can ALSO spread "LIKE BLOWTORCHES" through the many MORE shafts/conduits opened by Plane Impacts on many 9/11 floors...and be hidden in all that smoke from jetfuel-spread widespread fires STARTED ALL OVER, ALL AT ONCE (unlike the spread profile of 1975 fires);
- if the fireproof (then still ASBESTOS!) was intact in 1975 fires, and sprinklers/firefighters were suppressing them, then HOW MUCH HOTTER must have got any "BLOWTORCH" fires fanned up the many more opened shafts/conduits in 9/11;
- and NOW, if the window panes/casements in 1975 fires were heated BUT THEN SUDDENLY COOLED BY WATER/SPRAY FROM SPRINKLERS/HOSES (note that NO such water/spray was applied in 9/11 fires), then that might explain why glass windows were shattered in 1975 but not in 9/11....because there was NO firefighting WATER spray on the outer walls.
So it seems that the CTers have presented evidence that the 9/11 fires, INTERNALLY at least through shafts/conduits, could have been AT LEAST as hot as 1975 fires (and probably hotter, since there was no firefighting against any such 'smoke-obscured' "blowtorch"-like hotspot fires in 9/11.
(2) Regarding CTer claims that air fanning fires to steel-affecting/softening "blowtorch" temperatures must be 'forced' by mechanical means (bellows).
Others, including some CTers themselves , have pointed out that RISING flames/fires in constrained/flue-like conditions will induce their OWN 'cyclonic' speed 'extreme-convection-forced' air flows (see "blowtorch" comments re 1975 fires);
So if CTer claim that 'blowtorch' and hence fast-airflow conditions WERE possible AND EVIDENT to firemen who WERE able to get to the fires in 1975, then the CTers claim that such 'forced air' scenarios were NOT possible on 9/11 BOTH on/above the impact floors and later in the RUBBLE (now photo-proven to be amply supplied with air and passages to establish such "blowtorch" conditions through "riser" passages) seems neither logical nor tenable.
(3) Christophera maintains that there was a re-inforced concrete core; and that explosives may have been incorporated during construction.
- I NOW point out that there appears to be insufficient REBAR and 'STRONG' concrete material in the rubble....for there appears to be just enough to explain the 'core-floor' concrete component;
- And if the cores were standing briefly (as confirmed by Christophera himself) after the rest of the tower debris was on the ground, THEN ALL THAT REBAR AND 'STRONG' CONCRETE FROM THE ALLEGED RE-INFORCED CONCRETE CORE THAT FELL AFTERWARDS, should have been strewn ON TOP of the rubble piles
- I NOW point out that NO squibs/explosions were seen during the 1975 fires (which CTers admit WERE "blowtorch" HOT, as would have been expected if the explosives WERE supposedly already included in the structure since construction;
- I also NOW point out that in the earlier terrorist bombing of the towers there TOO were no PROGRESSIVE explosions/squibbs which would have been expected from the 'percussion' waves from the terrorist bombs also setting off the alleged explosives/detonators within the adjoining concrete etc.
So, since no-one has mentioned/photographed acres of REBAR and STRONG CONCRETE all over the rubble piles and surroundings (since the remant core materials collapsed ON TOP of the rubble pile); and since the earlier fires/bombing did not set off the 'inbuilt explosives', Christophera's contentions of a re-inforced concrete core and 'inbuilt' explosives seem untenable.
(4) Cters have recently posted information regarding 'mach stem coincidences' and 'resonance damage', even after they previously 'poo-pooed' such possibilities in the chaos of 9/11 events.
It is pointed out that
- I myself previously alluded to 'destructive' frequencies/oscillations/pressure-coincidences etc during the protracted events involving vibrating/oscillating steel members/columns and suddenly-compressed are/combustion gas 'spikes' and explosion fronts from JET fuel-air mixes at plane impacts and subsequent fuel-air 'driven' by plane explosions up/down impact-opened shafts/conduits.
So it is heartening to see that the CTers are catching up with ALL the things that coulkd have been affecting structures/materials in that horrendous impact/fire/collapse sequence of events/processes.
(5) Regarding Aluminium 'ignition' and fire/reactions, CTers say that the Aluminium Oxide layer would prevent 'ignition'.
- I NOW point out (and people can confirm for themselves with just a little research) that the aluminium oxide layer is THIN (unless created via controlled hydrolysis methods) and HIGLY VULNERABLE to CHEMICAL attack/stripping (especially in Copper-including Alloys), and so would be likely that CLEANING fluids and OTHER acidic/alkalinic products present/produced in that chaos would have caused some ''chemical-baring' to ease the way for ignition sources/temps;
- it has also been pointed out that many materials present in the fire would REACT with such aluminium (whether oxide removed by previous chemical attack or not) so as to 'burn' in intimate contact with the 'oxidising' compounds (like Carbon Monoxide, Calcium Carbonate, Steam (H2O from bodies/water-coolers, severed pipes etc) and Silicon Oxide particles from impacted glass windows, fittings inplane and building.
It is also a possibility (one of many) that HIGH DENSITY/DUTY RUBBER and other high-density plastics and re-inforced COMPOSITE MATERIALS (both in plane and buildings/office equipment etc) wouls ALSO MELT and start GLOWING red hot while 'burning off' and flowing/pooling etc).
So the CTer claim, that the chaotic conditions/mixes/flows/movements in that catastrophy could NOT have produced HOT and REACTIVE situations OF MANY KINDS and affecting MANY MATERIALS, seems to beggar belief given the readily confirmable processes/principles and probabilities involved.
(6) And speaking of catastrophe and CHAOS, I note that even "newton" has recently recognised that CHAOS results in 'strange' (but nevertheless everyday) coincidences....since newton has observed that a cyclone/tornado/firestorm can destroy one building while leaving the next adjacent one intact/unscathed.
- I point out that I also brought up the 'chaotic coincidences' where forces transiently 'counterbalance' at accidental nodes/counternodes where things may be left destroyed/whole depending on the 'coincidence' and duration of that 'balanced' condition as the 'destruction-front PASSES away that point.
So perhaps newton can teach his CTer friends (especially metamars) all about CHAOS in MANY situations where events are of SUFFICIENT 'spread' in COMPONENTS. PROCESSES, TIME and SPACE so as to BE 'chaotic'; due to the randomised nature of the INTERACTIONS between the innumerable variables presented from moment to moment and location to location in such a LARGE DYNAMICAL SYSTEM as the TOWERS impact, fires and collapse represented over such a period of time.
TO EVERYONE:Sorry if I've missed rsponding to anyone, but I haven't been online much for the last couple of days; as my internet connection kept on dropping out in the middle of composing replies. Also. I have a problem accessing some pages in this thread because some entry/link therein seems to bring the tranfer rate to a standstill and my system classifies it as 'unfriendly' and shuts down...again, leaving me still logged on but not actually accessing Physorg! BTW: has anyone noticed if I've shown up as 'logged in' yesterday? I only ask because when I finally managed to get back into physorg this morning, I was shown as still logged in (I'm not surprised, since my connection/system shut down while I WAS logged on, hehehe...so Physorg must be 'remembering me). But I wonder how long after 'unexpected' shutdown/disengaging, does the Physorg system 'log you off' as 'non-active'? It must be more than a day at least!
Anyhow, that's all the time I have for now. I'll be back later in the week to see what's happening that could be construed at all as 'new', hehehe.
And here’s a special “Ciao” just for metamars and Christophera (who STILL haven’t figured out what physics and chaotic/dynamical systems of ALL SORTS 'look/sound' like when they see/hear some!)
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Brief recap of CTer asserions and others' comments:
(1) Cters say 9/11 fires were not as fierce as 'blowtorch'-like 1975 fires in Tower, where fires spread UP via telephone cable etc 'riser' conduits/shafts.
Others point out that:
- if the 1975 fires could spread "LIKE BLOWTORCHES" through shafts/conduits in 1975 fires, then they can ALSO spread "LIKE BLOWTORCHES" through the many MORE shafts/conduits opened by Plane Impacts on many 9/11 floors...and be hidden in all that smoke from jetfuel-spread widespread fires STARTED ALL OVER, ALL AT ONCE (unlike the spread profile of 1975 fires);
- if the fireproof (then still ASBESTOS!) was intact in 1975 fires, and sprinklers/firefighters were suppressing them, then HOW MUCH HOTTER must have got any "BLOWTORCH" fires fanned up the many more opened shafts/conduits in 9/11;
- and NOW, if the window panes/casements in 1975 fires were heated BUT THEN SUDDENLY COOLED BY WATER/SPRAY FROM SPRINKLERS/HOSES (note that NO such water/spray was applied in 9/11 fires), then that might explain why glass windows were shattered in 1975 but not in 9/11....because there was NO firefighting WATER spray on the outer walls.
So it seems that the CTers have presented evidence that the 9/11 fires, INTERNALLY at least through shafts/conduits, could have been AT LEAST as hot as 1975 fires (and probably hotter, since there was no firefighting against any such 'smoke-obscured' "blowtorch"-like hotspot fires in 9/11.
(2) Regarding CTer claims that air fanning fires to steel-affecting/softening "blowtorch" temperatures must be 'forced' by mechanical means (bellows).
Others, including some CTers themselves , have pointed out that RISING flames/fires in constrained/flue-like conditions will induce their OWN 'cyclonic' speed 'extreme-convection-forced' air flows (see "blowtorch" comments re 1975 fires);
So if CTer claim that 'blowtorch' and hence fast-airflow conditions WERE possible AND EVIDENT to firemen who WERE able to get to the fires in 1975, then the CTers claim that such 'forced air' scenarios were NOT possible on 9/11 BOTH on/above the impact floors and later in the RUBBLE (now photo-proven to be amply supplied with air and passages to establish such "blowtorch" conditions through "riser" passages) seems neither logical nor tenable.
(3) Christophera maintains that there was a re-inforced concrete core; and that explosives may have been incorporated during construction.
- I NOW point out that there appears to be insufficient REBAR and 'STRONG' concrete material in the rubble....for there appears to be just enough to explain the 'core-floor' concrete component;
- And if the cores were standing briefly (as confirmed by Christophera himself) after the rest of the tower debris was on the ground, THEN ALL THAT REBAR AND 'STRONG' CONCRETE FROM THE ALLEGED RE-INFORCED CONCRETE CORE THAT FELL AFTERWARDS, should have been strewn ON TOP of the rubble piles
- I NOW point out that NO squibs/explosions were seen during the 1975 fires (which CTers admit WERE "blowtorch" HOT, as would have been expected if the explosives WERE supposedly already included in the structure since construction;
- I also NOW point out that in the earlier terrorist bombing of the towers there TOO were no PROGRESSIVE explosions/squibbs which would have been expected from the 'percussion' waves from the terrorist bombs also setting off the alleged explosives/detonators within the adjoining concrete etc.
So, since no-one has mentioned/photographed acres of REBAR and STRONG CONCRETE all over the rubble piles and surroundings (since the remant core materials collapsed ON TOP of the rubble pile); and since the earlier fires/bombing did not set off the 'inbuilt explosives', Christophera's contentions of a re-inforced concrete core and 'inbuilt' explosives seem untenable.
(4) Cters have recently posted information regarding 'mach stem coincidences' and 'resonance damage', even after they previously 'poo-pooed' such possibilities in the chaos of 9/11 events.
It is pointed out that
- I myself previously alluded to 'destructive' frequencies/oscillations/pressure-coincidences etc during the protracted events involving vibrating/oscillating steel members/columns and suddenly-compressed are/combustion gas 'spikes' and explosion fronts from JET fuel-air mixes at plane impacts and subsequent fuel-air 'driven' by plane explosions up/down impact-opened shafts/conduits.
So it is heartening to see that the CTers are catching up with ALL the things that coulkd have been affecting structures/materials in that horrendous impact/fire/collapse sequence of events/processes.
(5) Regarding Aluminium 'ignition' and fire/reactions, CTers say that the Aluminium Oxide layer would prevent 'ignition'.
- I NOW point out (and people can confirm for themselves with just a little research) that the aluminium oxide layer is THIN (unless created via controlled hydrolysis methods) and HIGLY VULNERABLE to CHEMICAL attack/stripping (especially in Copper-including Alloys), and so would be likely that CLEANING fluids and OTHER acidic/alkalinic products present/produced in that chaos would have caused some ''chemical-baring' to ease the way for ignition sources/temps;
- it has also been pointed out that many materials present in the fire would REACT with such aluminium (whether oxide removed by previous chemical attack or not) so as to 'burn' in intimate contact with the 'oxidising' compounds (like Carbon Monoxide, Calcium Carbonate, Steam (H2O from bodies/water-coolers, severed pipes etc) and Silicon Oxide particles from impacted glass windows, fittings inplane and building.
It is also a possibility (one of many) that HIGH DENSITY/DUTY RUBBER and other high-density plastics and re-inforced COMPOSITE MATERIALS (both in plane and buildings/office equipment etc) wouls ALSO MELT and start GLOWING red hot while 'burning off' and flowing/pooling etc).
So the CTer claim, that the chaotic conditions/mixes/flows/movements in that catastrophy could NOT have produced HOT and REACTIVE situations OF MANY KINDS and affecting MANY MATERIALS, seems to beggar belief given the readily confirmable processes/principles and probabilities involved.
(6) And speaking of catastrophe and CHAOS, I note that even "newton" has recently recognised that CHAOS results in 'strange' (but nevertheless everyday) coincidences....since newton has observed that a cyclone/tornado/firestorm can destroy one building while leaving the next adjacent one intact/unscathed.
- I point out that I also brought up the 'chaotic coincidences' where forces transiently 'counterbalance' at accidental nodes/counternodes where things may be left destroyed/whole depending on the 'coincidence' and duration of that 'balanced' condition as the 'destruction-front PASSES away that point.
So perhaps newton can teach his CTer friends (especially metamars) all about CHAOS in MANY situations where events are of SUFFICIENT 'spread' in COMPONENTS. PROCESSES, TIME and SPACE so as to BE 'chaotic'; due to the randomised nature of the INTERACTIONS between the innumerable variables presented from moment to moment and location to location in such a LARGE DYNAMICAL SYSTEM as the TOWERS impact, fires and collapse represented over such a period of time.
TO EVERYONE:Sorry if I've missed rsponding to anyone, but I haven't been online much for the last couple of days; as my internet connection kept on dropping out in the middle of composing replies. Also. I have a problem accessing some pages in this thread because some entry/link therein seems to bring the tranfer rate to a standstill and my system classifies it as 'unfriendly' and shuts down...again, leaving me still logged on but not actually accessing Physorg! BTW: has anyone noticed if I've shown up as 'logged in' yesterday? I only ask because when I finally managed to get back into physorg this morning, I was shown as still logged in (I'm not surprised, since my connection/system shut down while I WAS logged on, hehehe...so Physorg must be 'remembering me). But I wonder how long after 'unexpected' shutdown/disengaging, does the Physorg system 'log you off' as 'non-active'? It must be more than a day at least!
Anyhow, that's all the time I have for now. I'll be back later in the week to see what's happening that could be construed at all as 'new', hehehe.
And here’s a special “Ciao” just for metamars and Christophera (who STILL haven’t figured out what physics and chaotic/dynamical systems of ALL SORTS 'look/sound' like when they see/hear some!)
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Figure 1 of this link http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
Copy the image and enlarge it.
Place a ruler along the l/h perimiter corner.
Can you get a straight line to match? I couldn't. Whats going on in terms os structural stress?
Copy the image and enlarge it.
Place a ruler along the l/h perimiter corner.
Can you get a straight line to match? I couldn't. Whats going on in terms os structural stress?
...sorry I was looking at something that isnt there!
guess I need my eyes checked, its a poor photo too
guess I need my eyes checked, its a poor photo too
I have just read almost all the firehouse.com interviews with the fireman. There is now absolutely NO DOUBT the fireman thought 7 was going to collapes by fire...
Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.
Before we took off, he said, look, if you see any apparatus, strip the apparatus for hose, nozzles, masks, anything you can get. As we headed east, we reached Church and then we were midway from there and then all of a sudden, we could see 5 come into view. It was fully involved. There was apparatus burning all over the place. Guys were scrambling around there. There were a lot of firemen, and there was a lot of commotion, but you couldn’t see much that was going on. I didn’t see any lines in operation yet. But we found a battalion rig there. We got a couple of harnesses out of there. We had some bottles from another rig, so we put together a couple of masks.
We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.
A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
This proves there was a big hole on the south side. It's in the middle of the building and goes up about 20 stories...
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Jay Jonas told me that at one point, when he had finally made his way out of the debris, you were standing on top of a truck?
Hayden: Yes. It was covered in debris. I got on top of the rig only to establish a presence there. There was a lot of confusion, a lot of chaos. That was my command post in that sector. I stood on top of the rig and people could see who I was, that there was a chief in charge and that people could come to me and I’d give them assignments. It worked. I didn’t realize it at the time, but it worked. People could point, there’s the chief over there, rather than out of all this chaos and destruction, where was there a command post? You couldn’t even make out West Street. So I saw the rig. I got on top of the rig and I stayed there. And eventually we got a bullhorn, a radio. I had a bullhorn and we were able to get some type of order in the assignments and what we were doing. We tried to get some type of accountability. I gathered everybody around me. There were hundreds of guys and there was a lot of confusion. I had everybody take their helmets off for a moment of silence, and it calmed everybody down. Then, I said, please assist the chief officers in getting some accountability here. Whether you’re on duty or off duty, give them your name, your unit, and give it in to the chiefs. The chiefs made up a list and I had started getting a list of who I had working on the site there, also. It was just an attempt to gain some kind of control.
Firehouse: So you were able to move forward a little bit at that point?
Hayden: At that point. And then also when I got everybody around. I didn’t know how many chiefs I had there. I just told them what we’re going to do, we’re going to split this up into companies. I did it by getting them to stop and take their helmets off for a moment of silence.Once I had the moment of silence, then I started giving out the orders to everybody about what we’re going to do. After that, we had some type of organization. That’s the only way I could have done it. I couldn’t think – I needed help. It was a desperate measure.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
It mirrors what Silverstin said.
Case closed...
Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.
Before we took off, he said, look, if you see any apparatus, strip the apparatus for hose, nozzles, masks, anything you can get. As we headed east, we reached Church and then we were midway from there and then all of a sudden, we could see 5 come into view. It was fully involved. There was apparatus burning all over the place. Guys were scrambling around there. There were a lot of firemen, and there was a lot of commotion, but you couldn’t see much that was going on. I didn’t see any lines in operation yet. But we found a battalion rig there. We got a couple of harnesses out of there. We had some bottles from another rig, so we put together a couple of masks.
We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.
A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
This proves there was a big hole on the south side. It's in the middle of the building and goes up about 20 stories...
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Jay Jonas told me that at one point, when he had finally made his way out of the debris, you were standing on top of a truck?
Hayden: Yes. It was covered in debris. I got on top of the rig only to establish a presence there. There was a lot of confusion, a lot of chaos. That was my command post in that sector. I stood on top of the rig and people could see who I was, that there was a chief in charge and that people could come to me and I’d give them assignments. It worked. I didn’t realize it at the time, but it worked. People could point, there’s the chief over there, rather than out of all this chaos and destruction, where was there a command post? You couldn’t even make out West Street. So I saw the rig. I got on top of the rig and I stayed there. And eventually we got a bullhorn, a radio. I had a bullhorn and we were able to get some type of order in the assignments and what we were doing. We tried to get some type of accountability. I gathered everybody around me. There were hundreds of guys and there was a lot of confusion. I had everybody take their helmets off for a moment of silence, and it calmed everybody down. Then, I said, please assist the chief officers in getting some accountability here. Whether you’re on duty or off duty, give them your name, your unit, and give it in to the chiefs. The chiefs made up a list and I had started getting a list of who I had working on the site there, also. It was just an attempt to gain some kind of control.
Firehouse: So you were able to move forward a little bit at that point?
Hayden: At that point. And then also when I got everybody around. I didn’t know how many chiefs I had there. I just told them what we’re going to do, we’re going to split this up into companies. I did it by getting them to stop and take their helmets off for a moment of silence.Once I had the moment of silence, then I started giving out the orders to everybody about what we’re going to do. After that, we had some type of organization. That’s the only way I could have done it. I couldn’t think – I needed help. It was a desperate measure.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
It mirrors what Silverstin said.
Case closed...
yeah, reality check.
when we talk about tesla devices being used to shake the buildng apart, we're not talking about coincidental resonance.
when we talk of chaos, we are not talking of the abiltiy to drop 1000 matches on the floor and have the mona lisa smiling up at us with wooden teeth.
while a do admit it would be possible for there to be a coincidendental spot where fuel is fed into a draughty area, i won't admit that even chaos thoery will allow for there to be this scenario EVERYWHERE at ground zero.
i mean , THEORETICALLY you can flip heads FOREVER in infinite coin tosses, but in REALITY, 20 heads in a row would be a near miracle.
there is still no source of heat that occounts for the fires that only pyrocool could quell, and if you want to shave with occam's razor, you better START with tower seven.
none of you government guard dogs have EVER approached the subject(wtc7) with more than a hand wave, and yet, it is the single most anomolous event of the day.
0.5 seconds more than freefall. looks EXACTLY like a TYPICAL controlled demo.
when you factor in the office of emergency management(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) with the ridiculous blast proof windows, air supply, generators, et al., the truth of the day is OBVIOUS.
when i talk about the possibilities of 'star trek' weapons, it is only to stymie particular brands of hand waving, like the ones that say you need nineteen thousand pounds of TNT per floor to make it happen.
when we talk about tesla devices being used to shake the buildng apart, we're not talking about coincidental resonance.
when we talk of chaos, we are not talking of the abiltiy to drop 1000 matches on the floor and have the mona lisa smiling up at us with wooden teeth.
while a do admit it would be possible for there to be a coincidendental spot where fuel is fed into a draughty area, i won't admit that even chaos thoery will allow for there to be this scenario EVERYWHERE at ground zero.
i mean , THEORETICALLY you can flip heads FOREVER in infinite coin tosses, but in REALITY, 20 heads in a row would be a near miracle.
there is still no source of heat that occounts for the fires that only pyrocool could quell, and if you want to shave with occam's razor, you better START with tower seven.
none of you government guard dogs have EVER approached the subject(wtc7) with more than a hand wave, and yet, it is the single most anomolous event of the day.
0.5 seconds more than freefall. looks EXACTLY like a TYPICAL controlled demo.
when you factor in the office of emergency management(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) with the ridiculous blast proof windows, air supply, generators, et al., the truth of the day is OBVIOUS.
when i talk about the possibilities of 'star trek' weapons, it is only to stymie particular brands of hand waving, like the ones that say you need nineteen thousand pounds of TNT per floor to make it happen.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 14 2006, 11:33 PM)
And here’s a special “Ciao” just for metamars and Christophera (who STILL haven’t figured out what physics and chaotic/dynamical systems of ALL SORTS 'look/sound' like when they see/hear some!)
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Considering that the physic experts are plugging the thread with discussion absolutely inconsequential to the towers demise, not a collapse, and that the most active here have ignored the only evidence that exists of the core, which completely changes the discussion, I sort of think the point you've tried to make is without meaning.
The towers had concrete cores and fire had nothing to do with them falling. If you cannot get that information engaged, you cannot analyse what happened to them.
This is the tubular, steel reinforced concrete core of WTC 2.
If you think that there were 47 1,300 foot steel columns in the core and we do not see them, then you must explain why they are unseen, if you are going to remain reasonable. You must explain them because I know exactly what kind of core there was and am proving it.
Here is the considerable evidence of photographic images of the towers and other , un interested sources from history and elsewhere.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Attempts to deny this using NO EVIDENCE from raw sources is UNREASONABLE. Forget the physics, you have deeper problems,
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Considering that the physic experts are plugging the thread with discussion absolutely inconsequential to the towers demise, not a collapse, and that the most active here have ignored the only evidence that exists of the core, which completely changes the discussion, I sort of think the point you've tried to make is without meaning.
The towers had concrete cores and fire had nothing to do with them falling. If you cannot get that information engaged, you cannot analyse what happened to them.
This is the tubular, steel reinforced concrete core of WTC 2.
If you think that there were 47 1,300 foot steel columns in the core and we do not see them, then you must explain why they are unseen, if you are going to remain reasonable. You must explain them because I know exactly what kind of core there was and am proving it.
Here is the considerable evidence of photographic images of the towers and other , un interested sources from history and elsewhere.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Attempts to deny this using NO EVIDENCE from raw sources is UNREASONABLE. Forget the physics, you have deeper problems,
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 01:11 AM)
yeah, reality check.
when we talk about tesla devices being used to shake the buildng apart, we're not talking about coincidental resonance.
when we talk of chaos, we are not talking of the abiltiy to drop 1000 matches on the floor and have the mona lisa smiling up at us with wooden teeth.
while a do admit it would be possible for there to be a coincidendental spot where fuel is fed into a draughty area, i won't admit that even chaos thoery will allow for there to be this scenario EVERYWHERE at ground zero.
i mean , THEORETICALLY you can flip heads FOREVER in infinite coin tosses, but in REALITY, 20 heads in a row would be a near miracle.
there is still no source of heat that occounts for the fires that only pyrocool could quell, and if you want to shave with occam's razor, you better START with tower seven.
none of you government guard dogs have EVER approached the subject(wtc7) with more than a hand wave, and yet, it is the single most anomolous event of the day.
0.5 seconds more than freefall. looks EXACTLY like a TYPICAL controlled demo.
when you factor in the office of emergency management(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) with the ridiculous blast proof windows, air supply, generators, et al., the truth of the day is OBVIOUS.
when i talk about the possibilities of 'star trek' weapons, it is only to stymie particular brands of hand waving, like the ones that say you need nineteen thousand pounds of TNT per floor to make it happen.
I knew they would get around to changing the subject...
But the fact is the quotes I provided above destroy the "Pulled" argument. The fireman said even a POLICEMAN could see the building wasn't plumb. They saw a large hole 20 stories high IN THE MIDDLE of the building on the south side. They put a transit on the building and knew the building would collapse. Everyone asked about 7 said they were "PULLED" out.
That supports Silverstin's account.
That supports Silverstin's account.
Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event
That also supports Silverstins account.
Once again, you have nothing.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
The old "Intelligent Design" argument.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
yeah. fairy tales.
unmitigated heresay, dude.
the towers were built to take MULTIPLE 707 hits. you're just making stuff up. i've read the testimony from several fireman saying how completely shocked they were when the towers came down, and they NEVER expected the towers to fall.
WHY WOULD THEY? it's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. if they didn't fall as soon as the planes hit them, they weren't going to fall at all.
i've yet to see ONE bit of testimony from a fireman saying he expected the towers to fall.
provide it, and i will show you a preplanted, coached shadow government shill.
just ONE of you blind bats explain how tower seven could come down like that.
this oughta be good.
The old "Intelligent Design" argument.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
yeah. fairy tales.
unmitigated heresay, dude.
the towers were built to take MULTIPLE 707 hits. you're just making stuff up. i've read the testimony from several fireman saying how completely shocked they were when the towers came down, and they NEVER expected the towers to fall.
WHY WOULD THEY? it's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. if they didn't fall as soon as the planes hit them, they weren't going to fall at all.
i've yet to see ONE bit of testimony from a fireman saying he expected the towers to fall.
provide it, and i will show you a preplanted, coached shadow government shill.
just ONE of you blind bats explain how tower seven could come down like that.
this oughta be good.
You're lying again fool, The towers were designed for ONE 707 which is much smaller than a 757. They didn't factor in the fuel either.
Would you like me to make you look more stupid by posting quote?
Tough shiit moron, News flash, if you post on a public forum the PUBLIC will reply. If you want to send RC messages try PM you stupid ignorant putz.
I WILL POST A REPLY TO EVER ONE OF YOUR POSTS NOW YOU LITTLE ARROGANT FOOL. Heh!
HEHEHEHE!!!
when we talk about tesla devices being used to shake the buildng apart, we're not talking about coincidental resonance.
when we talk of chaos, we are not talking of the abiltiy to drop 1000 matches on the floor and have the mona lisa smiling up at us with wooden teeth.
while a do admit it would be possible for there to be a coincidendental spot where fuel is fed into a draughty area, i won't admit that even chaos thoery will allow for there to be this scenario EVERYWHERE at ground zero.
i mean , THEORETICALLY you can flip heads FOREVER in infinite coin tosses, but in REALITY, 20 heads in a row would be a near miracle.
there is still no source of heat that occounts for the fires that only pyrocool could quell, and if you want to shave with occam's razor, you better START with tower seven.
none of you government guard dogs have EVER approached the subject(wtc7) with more than a hand wave, and yet, it is the single most anomolous event of the day.
0.5 seconds more than freefall. looks EXACTLY like a TYPICAL controlled demo.
when you factor in the office of emergency management(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) with the ridiculous blast proof windows, air supply, generators, et al., the truth of the day is OBVIOUS.
when i talk about the possibilities of 'star trek' weapons, it is only to stymie particular brands of hand waving, like the ones that say you need nineteen thousand pounds of TNT per floor to make it happen.
I knew they would get around to changing the subject...
But the fact is the quotes I provided above destroy the "Pulled" argument. The fireman said even a POLICEMAN could see the building wasn't plumb. They saw a large hole 20 stories high IN THE MIDDLE of the building on the south side. They put a transit on the building and knew the building would collapse. Everyone asked about 7 said they were "PULLED" out.
QUOTE
And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
That supports Silverstin's account.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned. |
That supports Silverstin's account.
Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event
That also supports Silverstins account.
Once again, you have nothing.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
Spire structures are seen in the video of the south tower collapse, although it's difficult to see them from the north-side vantage point. Here's two video stills of them.
I'm still interested in the rest of the photos regarding the third pic which shows the core of the south tower. Supposedly there are 3 more pics in the sequence.
I'm still interested in the rest of the photos regarding the third pic which shows the core of the south tower. Supposedly there are 3 more pics in the sequence.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 01:11 AM)
yeah, reality check.
when we talk about tesla devices being used to shake the buildng apart, we're not talking about coincidental resonance.
when we talk of chaos, we are not talking of the abiltiy to drop 1000 matches on the floor and have the mona lisa smiling up at us with wooden teeth.
while a do admit it would be possible for there to be a coincidendental spot where fuel is fed into a draughty area, i won't admit that even chaos thoery will allow for there to be this scenario EVERYWHERE at ground zero.
i mean , THEORETICALLY you can flip heads FOREVER in infinite coin tosses, but in REALITY, 20 heads in a row would be a near miracle.
there is still no source of heat that occounts for the fires that only pyrocool could quell, and if you want to shave with occam's razor, you better START with tower seven.
none of you government guard dogs have EVER approached the subject(wtc7) with more than a hand wave, and yet, it is the single most anomolous event of the day.
0.5 seconds more than freefall. looks EXACTLY like a TYPICAL controlled demo.
when you factor in the office of emergency management(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) with the ridiculous blast proof windows, air supply, generators, et al., the truth of the day is OBVIOUS.
when i talk about the possibilities of 'star trek' weapons, it is only to stymie particular brands of hand waving, like the ones that say you need nineteen thousand pounds of TNT per floor to make it happen.
The old "Intelligent Design" argument.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
when we talk about tesla devices being used to shake the buildng apart, we're not talking about coincidental resonance.
when we talk of chaos, we are not talking of the abiltiy to drop 1000 matches on the floor and have the mona lisa smiling up at us with wooden teeth.
while a do admit it would be possible for there to be a coincidendental spot where fuel is fed into a draughty area, i won't admit that even chaos thoery will allow for there to be this scenario EVERYWHERE at ground zero.
i mean , THEORETICALLY you can flip heads FOREVER in infinite coin tosses, but in REALITY, 20 heads in a row would be a near miracle.
there is still no source of heat that occounts for the fires that only pyrocool could quell, and if you want to shave with occam's razor, you better START with tower seven.
none of you government guard dogs have EVER approached the subject(wtc7) with more than a hand wave, and yet, it is the single most anomolous event of the day.
0.5 seconds more than freefall. looks EXACTLY like a TYPICAL controlled demo.
when you factor in the office of emergency management(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) with the ridiculous blast proof windows, air supply, generators, et al., the truth of the day is OBVIOUS.
when i talk about the possibilities of 'star trek' weapons, it is only to stymie particular brands of hand waving, like the ones that say you need nineteen thousand pounds of TNT per floor to make it happen.
The old "Intelligent Design" argument.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
there is more than one thread of discussion within this thread, conman. you may notice, i started that post, 'yeah, reality check', which has nothing to do with you. as much as you like to THINK the world revolves around you, it doesn't. your constant spam and 'reverse psychology' isn't fooling anyone, and i doubt half the followers of this thread EVEN READ WHAT YOU WRITE, spamman.
christopher's talking about concrete cores. an important and plausible possibility.
foxx is focusing on fire and burning metal at the moment. also important, as it is the only visible evidence of anything molten, precollapse.
zoktoberfest has gloomed onto the possibility of resonance weapons ASSISTING in the collapse. (this DOES NOT rule out bombs. we SEE the bombs shooting out the windows. the bombs were RECORDED from hoboken.)
metamars is mostly focusing on the structure and momentum transfer.
gordon is mostly looking at strain and stress vectors.
i am all over the place. diggin' in the corners, keeping my stick on the ice and giving 110%.
however, seeing as you're jumping up and down, violently putting up your hand, "oh, oh, oh, mista kottair, mista kotair".
"yes, whoreshack?"
they pulled the firefighters out at 3:00 or 3:30, er whatever. the building fell TWO HOURS LATER. so, either silverstien has a very poor ability to communicate, or the events HE described were ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER. there were NO FIRE FIGHTERS to PULL.
and, even more importantly, the tower fell straight down with all four corners going at the same rate. the tower fell in about 6.5 seconds, 0.5 seconds slower than freefall.
have you seen how the support columns were arranged? the thing looked like a jigsaw puzzle inside. this makes a coincidental symmetrical collapse INCREDIBLY unlikely. add in the fact that one side had suffered great damage, while the other was pristine, it makes a coincidental symmetrical collapse IMPOSSIBLE.
we don't fcuking NEED silverstien to admit it. it's fcuking OBVIOUS, you IDIOT! 47 storey steel frame buildings just DON'T FALL DOWN, PERIOD. and ESPECIALLY not in fcuking perfectly symmetrical freefall!
idiot.
christopher's talking about concrete cores. an important and plausible possibility.
foxx is focusing on fire and burning metal at the moment. also important, as it is the only visible evidence of anything molten, precollapse.
zoktoberfest has gloomed onto the possibility of resonance weapons ASSISTING in the collapse. (this DOES NOT rule out bombs. we SEE the bombs shooting out the windows. the bombs were RECORDED from hoboken.)
metamars is mostly focusing on the structure and momentum transfer.
gordon is mostly looking at strain and stress vectors.
i am all over the place. diggin' in the corners, keeping my stick on the ice and giving 110%.
however, seeing as you're jumping up and down, violently putting up your hand, "oh, oh, oh, mista kottair, mista kotair".
"yes, whoreshack?"
they pulled the firefighters out at 3:00 or 3:30, er whatever. the building fell TWO HOURS LATER. so, either silverstien has a very poor ability to communicate, or the events HE described were ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER. there were NO FIRE FIGHTERS to PULL.
and, even more importantly, the tower fell straight down with all four corners going at the same rate. the tower fell in about 6.5 seconds, 0.5 seconds slower than freefall.
have you seen how the support columns were arranged? the thing looked like a jigsaw puzzle inside. this makes a coincidental symmetrical collapse INCREDIBLY unlikely. add in the fact that one side had suffered great damage, while the other was pristine, it makes a coincidental symmetrical collapse IMPOSSIBLE.
we don't fcuking NEED silverstien to admit it. it's fcuking OBVIOUS, you IDIOT! 47 storey steel frame buildings just DON'T FALL DOWN, PERIOD. and ESPECIALLY not in fcuking perfectly symmetrical freefall!
idiot.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 02:09 AM)
The old "Intelligent Design" argument.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
yeah. fairy tales.
unmitigated heresay, dude.
the towers were built to take MULTIPLE 707 hits. you're just making stuff up. i've read the testimony from several fireman saying how completely shocked they were when the towers came down, and they NEVER expected the towers to fall.
WHY WOULD THEY? it's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. if they didn't fall as soon as the planes hit them, they weren't going to fall at all.
i've yet to see ONE bit of testimony from a fireman saying he expected the towers to fall.
provide it, and i will show you a preplanted, coached shadow government shill.
just ONE of you blind bats explain how tower seven could come down like that.
this oughta be good.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 02:24 AM)
there is more than one thread of discussion within this thread, conman. you may notice, i started that post, 'yeah, reality check', which has nothing to do with you. as much as you like to THINK the world revolves around you, it doesn't. your constant spam and 'reverse psychology' isn't fooling anyone, and i doubt half the followers of this thread EVEN READ WHAT YOU WRITE, spamman.
christopher's talking about concrete cores. an important and plausible possibility.
foxx is focusing on fire and burning metal at the moment. also important, as it is the only visible evidence of anything molten, precollapse.
zoktoberfest has gloomed onto the possibility of resonance weapons ASSISTING in the collapse. (this DOES NOT rule out bombs. we SEE the bombs shooting out the windows. the bombs were RECORDED from hoboken.)
metamars is mostly focusing on the structure and momentum transfer.
gordon is mostly looking at strain and stress vectors.
i am all over the place. diggin' in the corners, keeping my stick on the ice and giving 110%.
however, seeing as you're jumping up and down, violently putting up your hand, "oh, oh, oh, mista kottair, mista kotair".
"yes, whoreshack?"
they pulled the firefighters out at 3:00 or 3:30, er whatever. the building fell TWO HOURS LATER. so, either silverstien has a very poor ability to communicate, or the events HE described were ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER. there were NO FIRE FIGHTERS to PULL.
and, even more importantly, the tower fell straight down with all four corners going at the same rate. the tower fell in about 6.5 seconds, 0.5 seconds slower than freefall.
have you seen how the support columns were arranged? the thing looked like a jigsaw puzzle inside. this makes a coincidental symmetrical collapse INCREDIBLY unlikely. add in the fact that one side had suffered great damage, while the other was pristine, it makes a coincidental symmetrical collapse IMPOSSIBLE.
we don't fcuking NEED silverstien to admit it. it's fcuking OBVIOUS, you IDIOT! 47 storey steel frame buildings just DON'T FALL DOWN, PERIOD. and ESPECIALLY not in fcuking perfectly symmetrical freefall!
idiot.
Tough shiit moron, News flash, if you post on a public forum the PUBLIC will reply. If you want to send RC messages try PM you stupid ignorant putz.
I WILL POST A REPLY TO EVER ONE OF YOUR POSTS NOW YOU LITTLE ARROGANT FOOL. Heh!
christopher's talking about concrete cores. an important and plausible possibility.
foxx is focusing on fire and burning metal at the moment. also important, as it is the only visible evidence of anything molten, precollapse.
zoktoberfest has gloomed onto the possibility of resonance weapons ASSISTING in the collapse. (this DOES NOT rule out bombs. we SEE the bombs shooting out the windows. the bombs were RECORDED from hoboken.)
metamars is mostly focusing on the structure and momentum transfer.
gordon is mostly looking at strain and stress vectors.
i am all over the place. diggin' in the corners, keeping my stick on the ice and giving 110%.
however, seeing as you're jumping up and down, violently putting up your hand, "oh, oh, oh, mista kottair, mista kotair".
"yes, whoreshack?"
they pulled the firefighters out at 3:00 or 3:30, er whatever. the building fell TWO HOURS LATER. so, either silverstien has a very poor ability to communicate, or the events HE described were ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER. there were NO FIRE FIGHTERS to PULL.
and, even more importantly, the tower fell straight down with all four corners going at the same rate. the tower fell in about 6.5 seconds, 0.5 seconds slower than freefall.
have you seen how the support columns were arranged? the thing looked like a jigsaw puzzle inside. this makes a coincidental symmetrical collapse INCREDIBLY unlikely. add in the fact that one side had suffered great damage, while the other was pristine, it makes a coincidental symmetrical collapse IMPOSSIBLE.
we don't fcuking NEED silverstien to admit it. it's fcuking OBVIOUS, you IDIOT! 47 storey steel frame buildings just DON'T FALL DOWN, PERIOD. and ESPECIALLY not in fcuking perfectly symmetrical freefall!
idiot.
Tough shiit moron, News flash, if you post on a public forum the PUBLIC will reply. If you want to send RC messages try PM you stupid ignorant putz.
I WILL POST A REPLY TO EVER ONE OF YOUR POSTS NOW YOU LITTLE ARROGANT FOOL. Heh!
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 02:32 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 02:09 AM)
The old "Intelligent Design" argument.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
yeah. fairy tales.
unmitigated heresay, dude.
the towers were built to take MULTIPLE 707 hits. you're just making stuff up. i've read the testimony from several fireman saying how completely shocked they were when the towers came down, and they NEVER expected the towers to fall.
WHY WOULD THEY? it's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. if they didn't fall as soon as the planes hit them, they weren't going to fall at all.
i've yet to see ONE bit of testimony from a fireman saying he expected the towers to fall.
provide it, and i will show you a preplanted, coached shadow government shill.
just ONE of you blind bats explain how tower seven could come down like that.
this oughta be good.
You're lying again fool, The towers were designed for ONE 707 which is much smaller than a 757. They didn't factor in the fuel either.
Would you like me to make you look more stupid by posting quote?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 02:32 AM)
just making stuff up. i've read the testimony from several fireman saying how completely shocked they were when the towers came down, and they NEVER expected the towers to fall.
WHY WOULD THEY? it's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. if they didn't fall as soon as the planes hit them, they weren't going to fall at all.
i've yet to see ONE bit of testimony from a fireman saying he expected the towers to fall.
provide it, and i will show you a preplanted, coached shadow government shill.
just ONE of you blind bats explain how tower seven could come down like that.
this oughta be good.
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL NOW? HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Does the text size bother you?
If there is one thing you should know in over 500 pages is I don't pull shiit out of my a$$ like you do.
WHY WOULD THEY? it's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. if they didn't fall as soon as the planes hit them, they weren't going to fall at all.
i've yet to see ONE bit of testimony from a fireman saying he expected the towers to fall.
provide it, and i will show you a preplanted, coached shadow government shill.
just ONE of you blind bats explain how tower seven could come down like that.
this oughta be good.
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL NOW? HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Does the text size bother you?
If there is one thing you should know in over 500 pages is I don't pull shiit out of my a$$ like you do.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 02:24 AM)
there is more than one thread of discussion within this thread, conman. you may notice, i started that post, 'yeah, reality check', which has nothing to do with you. as much as you like to THINK the world revolves around you, it doesn't. your constant spam and 'reverse psychology' isn't fooling anyone, and i doubt half the followers of this thread EVEN READ WHAT YOU WRITE, spamman.
christopher's talking about concrete cores. an important and plausible possibility.
foxx is focusing on fire and burning metal at the moment. also important, as it is the only visible evidence of anything molten, precollapse.
zoktoberfest has gloomed onto the possibility of resonance weapons ASSISTING in the collapse. (this DOES NOT rule out bombs. we SEE the bombs shooting out the windows. the bombs were RECORDED from hoboken.)
metamars is mostly focusing on the structure and momentum transfer.
gordon is mostly looking at strain and stress vectors.
i am all over the place. diggin' in the corners, keeping my stick on the ice and giving 110%.
however, seeing as you're jumping up and down, violently putting up your hand, "oh, oh, oh, mista kottair, mista kotair".
"yes, whoreshack?"
they pulled the firefighters out at 3:00 or 3:30, er whatever. the building fell TWO HOURS LATER. so, either silverstien has a very poor ability to communicate, or the events HE described were ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER. there were NO FIRE FIGHTERS to PULL.
and, even more importantly, the tower fell straight down with all four corners going at the same rate. the tower fell in about 6.5 seconds, 0.5 seconds slower than freefall.
have you seen how the support columns were arranged? the thing looked like a jigsaw puzzle inside. this makes a coincidental symmetrical collapse INCREDIBLY unlikely. add in the fact that one side had suffered great damage, while the other was pristine, it makes a coincidental symmetrical collapse IMPOSSIBLE.
we don't fcuking NEED silverstien to admit it. it's fcuking OBVIOUS, you IDIOT! 47 storey steel frame buildings just DON'T FALL DOWN, PERIOD. and ESPECIALLY not in fcuking perfectly symmetrical freefall!
idiot.
I was just about to log out when I caught your post in a final surf-through.
Are you alright there newton? Have they changed the rules? Have you at least tried to get the points raised?
Why fires HOT in 1975 and NOT HOT on 9/11?
If REBAR and STRONG vertical core-walls and not just core-flooring CONCRETE in the core, where is it?....since it fell ON TOP of the rubble AFTERWARDS?
If compression waves/vibrational resonance/coincidence IS possible, then why not some damage by such violent/extended processes as in 9/11 processes?
Aluminium can be easily stripped of its protective (thin) oxide coating by chemical attack/reaction....so can be readily ignited in those events/conditions.
Are you going the route of raving personal attacks because you've NOTHING to counter the points with? Do those points undermine your CT raison d'etre?
And you don't have to read my posts, mate! Good luck.
PS: Just for you, I WILL stick around a bit more today. See ya round, mate!
RC.
.
christopher's talking about concrete cores. an important and plausible possibility.
foxx is focusing on fire and burning metal at the moment. also important, as it is the only visible evidence of anything molten, precollapse.
zoktoberfest has gloomed onto the possibility of resonance weapons ASSISTING in the collapse. (this DOES NOT rule out bombs. we SEE the bombs shooting out the windows. the bombs were RECORDED from hoboken.)
metamars is mostly focusing on the structure and momentum transfer.
gordon is mostly looking at strain and stress vectors.
i am all over the place. diggin' in the corners, keeping my stick on the ice and giving 110%.
however, seeing as you're jumping up and down, violently putting up your hand, "oh, oh, oh, mista kottair, mista kotair".
"yes, whoreshack?"
they pulled the firefighters out at 3:00 or 3:30, er whatever. the building fell TWO HOURS LATER. so, either silverstien has a very poor ability to communicate, or the events HE described were ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER. there were NO FIRE FIGHTERS to PULL.
and, even more importantly, the tower fell straight down with all four corners going at the same rate. the tower fell in about 6.5 seconds, 0.5 seconds slower than freefall.
have you seen how the support columns were arranged? the thing looked like a jigsaw puzzle inside. this makes a coincidental symmetrical collapse INCREDIBLY unlikely. add in the fact that one side had suffered great damage, while the other was pristine, it makes a coincidental symmetrical collapse IMPOSSIBLE.
we don't fcuking NEED silverstien to admit it. it's fcuking OBVIOUS, you IDIOT! 47 storey steel frame buildings just DON'T FALL DOWN, PERIOD. and ESPECIALLY not in fcuking perfectly symmetrical freefall!
idiot.
I was just about to log out when I caught your post in a final surf-through.
Are you alright there newton? Have they changed the rules? Have you at least tried to get the points raised?
Why fires HOT in 1975 and NOT HOT on 9/11?
If REBAR and STRONG vertical core-walls and not just core-flooring CONCRETE in the core, where is it?....since it fell ON TOP of the rubble AFTERWARDS?
If compression waves/vibrational resonance/coincidence IS possible, then why not some damage by such violent/extended processes as in 9/11 processes?
Aluminium can be easily stripped of its protective (thin) oxide coating by chemical attack/reaction....so can be readily ignited in those events/conditions.
Are you going the route of raving personal attacks because you've NOTHING to counter the points with? Do those points undermine your CT raison d'etre?
And you don't have to read my posts, mate! Good luck.
PS: Just for you, I WILL stick around a bit more today. See ya round, mate!
RC.
.
what do you do? stuff it in?
and, no, your big text doesn't intimidate me, stuffshyte.
symmetrical freefall.
push in your own stool.
and, no, your big text doesn't intimidate me, stuffshyte.
symmetrical freefall.
push in your own stool.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 02:24 AM)
there is more than one thread of discussion within this thread, conman. you may notice, i started that post, 'yeah, reality check', which has nothing to do with you. as much as you like to THINK the world revolves around you, it doesn't. your constant spam and 'reverse psychology' isn't fooling anyone, and i doubt half the followers of this thread EVEN READ WHAT YOU WRITE, spamman.
I think it is adorable when he tries to speak. I think he is trying to invent a whole new language, which may explain why I can't understand him, but it is soooooo cute. Here are a few new words I picked up:
collpase
concidered
parcial
coin landed on tales
That's our CS, bless his heart.
I think it is adorable when he tries to speak. I think he is trying to invent a whole new language, which may explain why I can't understand him, but it is soooooo cute. Here are a few new words I picked up:
collpase
concidered
parcial
coin landed on tales
That's our CS, bless his heart.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 02:34 AM)
Tough shiit moron, News flash, if you post on a public forum the PUBLIC will reply. If you want to send RC messages try PM you stupid ignorant putz.
I WILL POST A REPLY TO EVER ONE OF YOUR POSTS NOW YOU LITTLE ARROGANT FOOL. Heh!
HEHEHEHE!!!
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 02:49 AM)
what do you do? stuff it in?
and, no, your big text doesn't intimidate me, stuffshyte.
symmetrical freefall.
push in your own stool.
You didn't tell me how you feel? Stupid or REAL stupid...
and, no, your big text doesn't intimidate me, stuffshyte.
symmetrical freefall.
push in your own stool.
You didn't tell me how you feel? Stupid or REAL stupid...
QUOTE (replicant+Mar 15 2006, 02:50 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 02:24 AM)
there is more than one thread of discussion within this thread, conman. you may notice, i started that post, 'yeah, reality check', which has nothing to do with you. as much as you like to THINK the world revolves around you, it doesn't. your constant spam and 'reverse psychology' isn't fooling anyone, and i doubt half the followers of this thread EVEN READ WHAT YOU WRITE, spamman.
I think it is adorable when he tries to speak. I think he is trying to invent a whole new language, which may explain why I can't understand him, but it is soooooo cute. Here are a few new words I picked up:
collpase
concidered
parcial
coin landed on tales
That's our CS, bless his heart.
I have spelled collapse correctly a thousand times in this thread. If I make a mistake it's because I DON'T GIVE A FU<K A$$HOLE. m'k
Don't like, change the subject or anything. You morons follow people like newt as if they were your pastor. A bunch of mindless lemmings, prasing fools.
Are you alright there newton? Have they changed the rules? Have you at least tried to get the points raised?
---what rules? i'm not doing anything CS didn't do first, if it's circumventing censors, you're talking about. anyway, fcuk is a chain of clothing stores.
Why fires HOT in 1975 and NOT HOT on 9/11?
----------because of ventilation. the huge hole caused by a giant plane is pretty good for airflow. this initially would cuase fires to burn hotter, but would lessen the time it took to exhaust the fuel. that is why the smoke turned black. not much fuel left over.
If REBAR and STRONG vertical core-walls and not just core-flooring CONCRETE in the core, where is it?....since it fell ON TOP of the rubble AFTERWARDS?
---------vapourised and powederised, dude, and spread all over manhattan. i thought you'd seen some pictures and read some testimony.
If compression waves/vibrational resonance/coincidence IS possible, then why not some damage by such violent/extended processes as in 9/11 processes?
---------well, that would have been a good thing for NIST to look at, wouldn't it? why should we be here trying to figure out what the hell happened when they had more tools and evidence?
Aluminium can be easily stripped of its protective (thin) oxide coating by chemical attack/reaction....so can be readily ignited in those events/conditions.
-------------chemistry's not my bag.
Are you going the route of raving personal attacks because you've NOTHING to counter the points with? Do those points undermine your CT raison d'etre?
-----------no, common sense pissed me off, HAHA!
And you don't have to read my posts, mate! Good luck.
RC.
.
----------they ARE very entertaining!
-----------my CT raison d' etre is to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. the government of the united states is not providing it. people who defend absence of evidence as evidence are not providing it.
you are not providing it.
okay, my turn.
how about tower seven? ignoring the question?
symmetrical freefall. 'ave a guess, even.
Are you alright there newton? Have they changed the rules? Have you at least tried to get the points raised?
---what rules? i'm not doing anything CS didn't do first, if it's circumventing censors, you're talking about. anyway, fcuk is a chain of clothing stores.
Why fires HOT in 1975 and NOT HOT on 9/11?
----------because of ventilation. the huge hole caused by a giant plane is pretty good for airflow. this initially would cuase fires to burn hotter, but would lessen the time it took to exhaust the fuel. that is why the smoke turned black. not much fuel left over.
If REBAR and STRONG vertical core-walls and not just core-flooring CONCRETE in the core, where is it?....since it fell ON TOP of the rubble AFTERWARDS?
---------vapourised and powederised, dude, and spread all over manhattan. i thought you'd seen some pictures and read some testimony.
If compression waves/vibrational resonance/coincidence IS possible, then why not some damage by such violent/extended processes as in 9/11 processes?
---------well, that would have been a good thing for NIST to look at, wouldn't it? why should we be here trying to figure out what the hell happened when they had more tools and evidence?
Aluminium can be easily stripped of its protective (thin) oxide coating by chemical attack/reaction....so can be readily ignited in those events/conditions.
-------------chemistry's not my bag.
Are you going the route of raving personal attacks because you've NOTHING to counter the points with? Do those points undermine your CT raison d'etre?
-----------no, common sense pissed me off, HAHA!
And you don't have to read my posts, mate! Good luck.
RC.
.
----------hey ARE very entertaining!
-----------my CT raison d' etre is to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. the government of the united states is not providing it. people who defend absence of evidence as evidence are not providing it.
you are not providing it.
okay, my turn.
how about tower seven? ignoring the question?
symmetrical freefall. 'ave a guess, even.
How many times have we addressed this Arthur? 10? 20? I forget...
So are the fireman lying?
I think it is adorable when he tries to speak. I think he is trying to invent a whole new language, which may explain why I can't understand him, but it is soooooo cute. Here are a few new words I picked up:
collpase
concidered
parcial
coin landed on tales
That's our CS, bless his heart.
I have spelled collapse correctly a thousand times in this thread. If I make a mistake it's because I DON'T GIVE A FU<K A$$HOLE. m'k
Don't like, change the subject or anything. You morons follow people like newt as if they were your pastor. A bunch of mindless lemmings, prasing fools.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2006, 02:48 AM)
Are you alright there newton? Have they changed the rules? Have you at least tried to get the points raised?
---what rules? i'm not doing anything CS didn't do first, if it's circumventing censors, you're talking about. anyway, fcuk is a chain of clothing stores.
Why fires HOT in 1975 and NOT HOT on 9/11?
----------because of ventilation. the huge hole caused by a giant plane is pretty good for airflow. this initially would cuase fires to burn hotter, but would lessen the time it took to exhaust the fuel. that is why the smoke turned black. not much fuel left over.
If REBAR and STRONG vertical core-walls and not just core-flooring CONCRETE in the core, where is it?....since it fell ON TOP of the rubble AFTERWARDS?
---------vapourised and powederised, dude, and spread all over manhattan. i thought you'd seen some pictures and read some testimony.
If compression waves/vibrational resonance/coincidence IS possible, then why not some damage by such violent/extended processes as in 9/11 processes?
---------well, that would have been a good thing for NIST to look at, wouldn't it? why should we be here trying to figure out what the hell happened when they had more tools and evidence?
Aluminium can be easily stripped of its protective (thin) oxide coating by chemical attack/reaction....so can be readily ignited in those events/conditions.
-------------chemistry's not my bag.
Are you going the route of raving personal attacks because you've NOTHING to counter the points with? Do those points undermine your CT raison d'etre?
-----------no, common sense pissed me off, HAHA!
And you don't have to read my posts, mate! Good luck.
RC.
.
----------they ARE very entertaining!
-----------my CT raison d' etre is to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. the government of the united states is not providing it. people who defend absence of evidence as evidence are not providing it.
you are not providing it.
okay, my turn.
how about tower seven? ignoring the question?
symmetrical freefall. 'ave a guess, even.
Lets here from the fireman who WERE there...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...igro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt
Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.
Before we took off, he said, look, if you see any apparatus, strip the apparatus for hose, nozzles, masks, anything you can get. As we headed east, we reached Church and then we were midway from there and then all of a sudden, we could see 5 come into view. It was fully involved. There was apparatus burning all over the place. Guys were scrambling around there. There were a lot of firemen, and there was a lot of commotion, but you couldn’t see much that was going on. I didn’t see any lines in operation yet. But we found a battalion rig there. We got a couple of harnesses out of there. We had some bottles from another rig, so we put together a couple of masks.
We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.
A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
This proves there was a big hole on the south side. It's in the middle of the building and goes up about 20 stories...
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Jay Jonas told me that at one point, when he had finally made his way out of the debris, you were standing on top of a truck?
Hayden: Yes. It was covered in debris. I got on top of the rig only to establish a presence there. There was a lot of confusion, a lot of chaos. That was my command post in that sector. I stood on top of the rig and people could see who I was, that there was a chief in charge and that people could come to me and I’d give them assignments. It worked. I didn’t realize it at the time, but it worked. People could point, there’s the chief over there, rather than out of all this chaos and destruction, where was there a command post? You couldn’t even make out West Street. So I saw the rig. I got on top of the rig and I stayed there. And eventually we got a bullhorn, a radio. I had a bullhorn and we were able to get some type of order in the assignments and what we were doing. We tried to get some type of accountability. I gathered everybody around me. There were hundreds of guys and there was a lot of confusion. I had everybody take their helmets off for a moment of silence, and it calmed everybody down. Then, I said, please assist the chief officers in getting some accountability here. Whether you’re on duty or off duty, give them your name, your unit, and give it in to the chiefs. The chiefs made up a list and I had started getting a list of who I had working on the site there, also. It was just an attempt to gain some kind of control.
Firehouse: So you were able to move forward a little bit at that point?
Hayden: At that point. And then also when I got everybody around. I didn’t know how many chiefs I had there. I just told them what we’re going to do, we’re going to split this up into companies. I did it by getting them to stop and take their helmets off for a moment of silence.Once I had the moment of silence, then I started giving out the orders to everybody about what we’re going to do. After that, we had some type of organization. That’s the only way I could have done it. I couldn’t think – I needed help. It was a desperate measure.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
It mirrors what Silverstin said.
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
What was that newt? There was no one to "PULL"? Heh!
I know "HEHEHEHEHE!!!"
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...igro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt
Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.
Before we took off, he said, look, if you see any apparatus, strip the apparatus for hose, nozzles, masks, anything you can get. As we headed east, we reached Church and then we were midway from there and then all of a sudden, we could see 5 come into view. It was fully involved. There was apparatus burning all over the place. Guys were scrambling around there. There were a lot of firemen, and there was a lot of commotion, but you couldn’t see much that was going on. I didn’t see any lines in operation yet. But we found a battalion rig there. We got a couple of harnesses out of there. We had some bottles from another rig, so we put together a couple of masks.
We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.
A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
This proves there was a big hole on the south side. It's in the middle of the building and goes up about 20 stories...
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Jay Jonas told me that at one point, when he had finally made his way out of the debris, you were standing on top of a truck?
Hayden: Yes. It was covered in debris. I got on top of the rig only to establish a presence there. There was a lot of confusion, a lot of chaos. That was my command post in that sector. I stood on top of the rig and people could see who I was, that there was a chief in charge and that people could come to me and I’d give them assignments. It worked. I didn’t realize it at the time, but it worked. People could point, there’s the chief over there, rather than out of all this chaos and destruction, where was there a command post? You couldn’t even make out West Street. So I saw the rig. I got on top of the rig and I stayed there. And eventually we got a bullhorn, a radio. I had a bullhorn and we were able to get some type of order in the assignments and what we were doing. We tried to get some type of accountability. I gathered everybody around me. There were hundreds of guys and there was a lot of confusion. I had everybody take their helmets off for a moment of silence, and it calmed everybody down. Then, I said, please assist the chief officers in getting some accountability here. Whether you’re on duty or off duty, give them your name, your unit, and give it in to the chiefs. The chiefs made up a list and I had started getting a list of who I had working on the site there, also. It was just an attempt to gain some kind of control.
Firehouse: So you were able to move forward a little bit at that point?
Hayden: At that point. And then also when I got everybody around. I didn’t know how many chiefs I had there. I just told them what we’re going to do, we’re going to split this up into companies. I did it by getting them to stop and take their helmets off for a moment of silence.Once I had the moment of silence, then I started giving out the orders to everybody about what we’re going to do. After that, we had some type of organization. That’s the only way I could have done it. I couldn’t think – I needed help. It was a desperate measure.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
It mirrors what Silverstin said.
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
What was that newt? There was no one to "PULL"? Heh!
I know "HEHEHEHEHE!!!"
Careful newton... you can tell by all the shouting, handwaving, and cursing that ol' Dr. Jeckyl has been testing his new formula again. Too bad they don't offer 100 pt text on this forum. He could fill a couple of pages with one letter posts. Mind you, I guess in his own mind's eye he sees himself as really making progress in this scientific debate. He can hear the imaginary crowds cheering him on.
After all - look he's got 'Heh' backing him up and boosting his ego all the way.
I really think he suffers from the same delusional traits as Schneibster exhibited, but let's just play along and pretend he is fooling us. We don't need another axe murderer blowing his cool on this thread, although it is quite humorous to watch.
I do think we need to petition the monitors to increase the font size, so we can watch the volcano grow.
and YOU thought Yosemite Sam was JUST a cartoon character... He's alive and well, right here and now, for our amusement.
After all - look he's got 'Heh' backing him up and boosting his ego all the way.
I really think he suffers from the same delusional traits as Schneibster exhibited, but let's just play along and pretend he is fooling us. We don't need another axe murderer blowing his cool on this thread, although it is quite humorous to watch.
I do think we need to petition the monitors to increase the font size, so we can watch the volcano grow.
and YOU thought Yosemite Sam was JUST a cartoon character... He's alive and well, right here and now, for our amusement.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2006, 02:48 AM)
Are you alright there newton? Have they changed the rules? Have you at least tried to get the points raised?
---what rules? i'm not doing anything CS didn't do first, if it's circumventing censors, you're talking about. anyway, fcuk is a chain of clothing stores.
Why fires HOT in 1975 and NOT HOT on 9/11?
----------because of ventilation. the huge hole caused by a giant plane is pretty good for airflow. this initially would cuase fires to burn hotter, but would lessen the time it took to exhaust the fuel. that is why the smoke turned black. not much fuel left over.
If REBAR and STRONG vertical core-walls and not just core-flooring CONCRETE in the core, where is it?....since it fell ON TOP of the rubble AFTERWARDS?
---------vapourised and powederised, dude, and spread all over manhattan. i thought you'd seen some pictures and read some testimony.
If compression waves/vibrational resonance/coincidence IS possible, then why not some damage by such violent/extended processes as in 9/11 processes?
---------well, that would have been a good thing for NIST to look at, wouldn't it? why should we be here trying to figure out what the hell happened when they had more tools and evidence?
Aluminium can be easily stripped of its protective (thin) oxide coating by chemical attack/reaction....so can be readily ignited in those events/conditions.
-------------chemistry's not my bag.
Are you going the route of raving personal attacks because you've NOTHING to counter the points with? Do those points undermine your CT raison d'etre?
-----------no, common sense pissed me off, HAHA!
And you don't have to read my posts, mate! Good luck.
RC.
.
----------hey ARE very entertaining!
-----------my CT raison d' etre is to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. the government of the united states is not providing it. people who defend absence of evidence as evidence are not providing it.
you are not providing it.
okay, my turn.
how about tower seven? ignoring the question?
symmetrical freefall. 'ave a guess, even.
How many times have we addressed this Arthur? 10? 20? I forget...
So are the fireman lying?
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 15 2006, 02:04 AM)
Spire structures are seen in the video of the south tower collapse, although it's difficult to see them from the north-side vantage point. Here's two video stills of them.
I'm still interested in the rest of the photos regarding the third pic which shows the core of the south tower. Supposedly there are 3 more pics in the sequence.
Here are the 2 I have.
This I think is the one before my upper pic.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2.core.tall.jpg
I'm still interested in the rest of the photos regarding the third pic which shows the core of the south tower. Supposedly there are 3 more pics in the sequence.
Here are the 2 I have.
This I think is the one before my upper pic.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2.core.tall.jpg
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.