QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think it's "utter bull$hit". I think it has something going for it, but is too unlikely overall. Nor does it jive with what we know about the criminality and imperialistic desires of the most corrupt government in US history and how 9/11 benefitted them perfectly. I thought you said you had no preconceived notions that would affect your reasoning here. You just stated that you believe in CD not because it is a better explanation for what happened but because the gov't is an evil force that does bad things. |
It is not my fault if you can't comprehend basic english. My first reason is "too unlikely overall". The next reason is secondary.
And again I can prove you completely wrong, as I was HAPPY in Nov 04 that Bush got re-elected. It was having my eyes opened by the 9/11 evidence that LED to my current views on the government, not the other way round.
Please don't waste my time with these childish and inaccurate misinterpretations and complete guesses.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 31 2006, 05:15 AM)
AP reports explosion on the 105th floor, from newly released documents...
published - Friday March 31, 2006...
(Must have been 'transformers' on every floor)
(AP) NEW YORK Christopher Hanley had to repeat his story to two different dispatchers after calling 911 from the Windows on the World restaurant on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Yeah. Hi. I'm on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center. We just had an explosion on the, on the like 105th floor," Hanley, 35, told an operator. Later, he says, 'We have smoke and — it's pretty bad." An operator tells him to "sit tight. Do not leave, OK?"
Hanley, who died in the trade center, was one of 28 people identified among about 130 emergency calls the city planned to release Friday. Hanley's parents shared the tape with The New York Times, which had sued the city for access to all the calls.
http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_089185930.html
Note that he doesn't say it "Sounded" like an explosion --- he states "We just HAD AN EXPLOSION"
Poor Mr. Hanley must've been a CTer just before he died.
OMIGAWD, Foxx you incredible fool.
He did not see the aircraft hit. He is referring to the aircraft impact and fireball.
This 911 call was received just after the plane impact.
Of course he did no say it sounded like an explosion. An aircraft smacking a building and having its fuel ignite in a large fireball IS an explosion.
published - Friday March 31, 2006...
(Must have been 'transformers' on every floor)
QUOTE
(AP) NEW YORK Christopher Hanley had to repeat his story to two different dispatchers after calling 911 from the Windows on the World restaurant on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Yeah. Hi. I'm on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center. We just had an explosion on the, on the like 105th floor," Hanley, 35, told an operator. Later, he says, 'We have smoke and — it's pretty bad." An operator tells him to "sit tight. Do not leave, OK?"
Hanley, who died in the trade center, was one of 28 people identified among about 130 emergency calls the city planned to release Friday. Hanley's parents shared the tape with The New York Times, which had sued the city for access to all the calls.
http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_089185930.html
Note that he doesn't say it "Sounded" like an explosion --- he states "We just HAD AN EXPLOSION"
Poor Mr. Hanley must've been a CTer just before he died.
OMIGAWD, Foxx you incredible fool.
He did not see the aircraft hit. He is referring to the aircraft impact and fireball.
This 911 call was received just after the plane impact.
Of course he did no say it sounded like an explosion. An aircraft smacking a building and having its fuel ignite in a large fireball IS an explosion.
QUOTE
How can you even type that and sleep at night.
The penthouse and other roof top structures falling in illustrate that central load bearing columns were failing.
That is an element of the collapse, pure and simple.
The loads they were bearing were then distributed to the other central columns that survived this initial failure and to the perimeter walls. When those structural elements were overloaded they failed and since there was no where else to distribute the load the remaining structure all fails virtually simultaneously as all remaining elements quickly are overloaded well beyond design.
The penthouse and other roof top structures falling in illustrate that central load bearing columns were failing.
That is an element of the collapse, pure and simple.
The loads they were bearing were then distributed to the other central columns that survived this initial failure and to the perimeter walls. When those structural elements were overloaded they failed and since there was no where else to distribute the load the remaining structure all fails virtually simultaneously as all remaining elements quickly are overloaded well beyond design.
The roofline fell in 6.6 seconds, and THAT is what we must compare to free-fall. How you explain the 6.6 seconds is a different matter, but 6.6 IS the figure you have to try to justify, NOT 6.6 + 2 as you were trying to claim.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 05:22 AM)
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think it's "utter bull$hit". I think it has something going for it, but is too unlikely overall. Nor does it jive with what we know about the criminality and imperialistic desires of the most corrupt government in US history and how 9/11 benefitted them perfectly. I thought you said you had no preconceived notions that would affect your reasoning here. You just stated that you believe in CD not because it is a better explanation for what happened but because the gov't is an evil force that does bad things. |
It is not my fault if you can't comprehend basic english. My first reason is "too unlikely overall". The next reason is secondary.
And again I can prove you completely wrong, as I was HAPPY in Nov 04 that Bush got re-elected. It was having my eyes opened by the 9/11 evidence that LED to my current views on the government, not the other way round.
Please don't waste my time with these childish and inaccurate misinterpretations and complete guesses.
Then you prove your foolishness.
I hated GWB from the day he attacked John McCain. I hated GWB before he was ever a Republican candidate for Pres., and I'm not even an American.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 31 2006, 05:29 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 05:22 AM)
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think it's "utter bull$hit". I think it has something going for it, but is too unlikely overall. Nor does it jive with what we know about the criminality and imperialistic desires of the most corrupt government in US history and how 9/11 benefitted them perfectly. I thought you said you had no preconceived notions that would affect your reasoning here. You just stated that you believe in CD not because it is a better explanation for what happened but because the gov't is an evil force that does bad things. |
It is not my fault if you can't comprehend basic english. My first reason is "too unlikely overall". The next reason is secondary.
And again I can prove you completely wrong, as I was HAPPY in Nov 04 that Bush got re-elected. It was having my eyes opened by the 9/11 evidence that LED to my current views on the government, not the other way round.
Please don't waste my time with these childish and inaccurate misinterpretations and complete guesses.
Then you prove your foolishness.
I hated GWB from the day he attacked John McCain. I hated GWB before he was ever a Republican candidate for Pres., and I'm not even an American.
Your point being? (And I'm not American either)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 05:27 AM)
QUOTE
How can you even type that and sleep at night.
The penthouse and other roof top structures falling in illustrate that central load bearing columns were failing.
That is an element of the collapse, pure and simple.
The loads they were bearing were then distributed to the other central columns that survived this initial failure and to the perimeter walls. When those structural elements were overloaded they failed and since there was no where else to distribute the load the remaining structure all fails virtually simultaneously as all remaining elements quickly are overloaded well beyond design.
The penthouse and other roof top structures falling in illustrate that central load bearing columns were failing.
That is an element of the collapse, pure and simple.
The loads they were bearing were then distributed to the other central columns that survived this initial failure and to the perimeter walls. When those structural elements were overloaded they failed and since there was no where else to distribute the load the remaining structure all fails virtually simultaneously as all remaining elements quickly are overloaded well beyond design.
The roofline fell in 6.6 seconds, and THAT is what we must compare to free-fall. How you explain the 6.6 seconds is a different matter, but 6.6 IS the figure you have to try to justify, NOT 6.6 + 2 as you were trying to claim.
BECAUSE IN THAT 2 seconds structural intergrity of the entire building has already started to fail. Thus, when , finally, the exterior begins to go, a significant amount of the structural integrity is gone, removed, no longer in the service of keeping the building upright or of offering any resistance to the collapsing exterior!!
My point in the other post is only a fool would have supported GWB at all at any time. But that's MHO.
QUOTE
BECAUSE IN THAT 2 seconds structural intergrity of the entire building has already started to fail. Thus, when , finally, the exterior begins to go, a significant amount of the structural integrity is gone, removed, no longer in the service of keeping the building upright or of offering any resistance to the collapsing exterior!!
Good, you now seem to realise that it's the 6.6 that needs explaining, as you've tried to do here, which was the only point I was making.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| BECAUSE IN THAT 2 seconds structural intergrity of the entire building has already started to fail. Thus, when , finally, the exterior begins to go, a significant amount of the structural integrity is gone, removed, no longer in the service of keeping the building upright or of offering any resistance to the collapsing exterior!! |
Good, you now seem to realise that it's the 6.6 that needs explaining, as you've tried to do here, which was the only point I was making.
My point in the other post is only a fool would have supported GWB at all at any time. But that's MHO.
Excellent point. I will gladly stand aside due to being a fool if everyone who's been a republican at some point in the last 7 years who supports the OCT will do the same.
Prof Jones, its nice to see that you are fixing more of the errors I pointed out in your paper, however you still have many to go.
We can next start with section 5 of your paper. Its completely wrong.
As I'm sure you've seen from 911myths and other places.. the squibs don't appear.
You stated,
"The upper floors have evidently not moved relative to one another yet, from what one can observe from the videos."
This is also completely wrong. Everyone can see this from the 911myths site.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
Futhermore you can look at the other videos, they (like the higher rez video at 911 myths).
show no squibs either.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/
Another point please read the NIST report regarding the molten metal (Alumnium). If you just read the report more carefully you wouldn't have to keep updating errors in your paper. (Like the antenna fall) You also might want to e-mail Eagar. I don't think he's very happy with the edits and misrepresentations you made to his article. (Although I did note you added some info on section 11) Good, keep going.
You also might want to send Barnett an e-mail. According to your video you said he's a good guy.
Maybe then you should send him an e-mail. That way you don't have to listen to me explain what metal he was talking about.
Also when I asked you "Why couldn't the temps in the rubble with all of the fuel and combustibles get as hot as it was", you never really responded and stated you are still working on the theory. Are you ready now? I'd like to hear it from YOU.
I'm ready to hear you defend your paper here. Think of it this way, at worse you will be making many more corrections to help tighten up your information. You can take time responding if you want also, I'm a busy guy also so don't worry.
PS. Can I also ask who has been peer reviewing your paper?
Scott
We can next start with section 5 of your paper. Its completely wrong.
As I'm sure you've seen from 911myths and other places.. the squibs don't appear.
You stated,
"The upper floors have evidently not moved relative to one another yet, from what one can observe from the videos."
This is also completely wrong. Everyone can see this from the 911myths site.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
Futhermore you can look at the other videos, they (like the higher rez video at 911 myths).
show no squibs either.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/
Another point please read the NIST report regarding the molten metal (Alumnium). If you just read the report more carefully you wouldn't have to keep updating errors in your paper. (Like the antenna fall) You also might want to e-mail Eagar. I don't think he's very happy with the edits and misrepresentations you made to his article. (Although I did note you added some info on section 11) Good, keep going.
You also might want to send Barnett an e-mail. According to your video you said he's a good guy.
Maybe then you should send him an e-mail. That way you don't have to listen to me explain what metal he was talking about.
Also when I asked you "Why couldn't the temps in the rubble with all of the fuel and combustibles get as hot as it was", you never really responded and stated you are still working on the theory. Are you ready now? I'd like to hear it from YOU.
I'm ready to hear you defend your paper here. Think of it this way, at worse you will be making many more corrections to help tighten up your information. You can take time responding if you want also, I'm a busy guy also so don't worry.
PS. Can I also ask who has been peer reviewing your paper?
Scott
lenbrazil
Posted: Mar 31 2006, 01:52 AM
Report Post
QUOTE
I like to sit on the fence. The evidence was carted away pretty quickly. It's like trying to do a jigsaw without all the pieces......
Posted: Mar 31 2006, 01:52 AM
Report Post
QUOTE
QUOTE
...but I have NEVER seen you make any kind of scientific argument in favor of CD, please explain. Also why don't you write a paper?
I like to sit on the fence. The evidence was carted away pretty quickly. It's like trying to do a jigsaw without all the pieces......
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 31 2006, 04:05 AM)
He is also correct that most people who believe the “OCT” go on with their lives while those who believe Bush and the PNAC were behind 9/11 are more likely “to be vocal and strident about it”. When I lived in the US I was politically active: I was an ACLU organizer, I protested against the 1st Gulf War etc. If I believed the WTC was demo’d and was still stateside I would be very active about it – probably more so that the CD supporters on this forum.
The MIHOP/CD theorists also make noise far disproportionate to their numbers.
So Foxx tell us what percentage of the population do you think believes in CD?
Hopefully, Scholars for 911 Truth will facilitate and encourage some real science, both hard and social. If neither hard real science, or social real science, or a real investigation into military, air defense, intelligence and other non-scientific aspects of 911 interests you, that tells me you have no real interest in understanding the 911 attacks.
Not that that would surprise me in the least.
Thank for repeating that for us. You are correct, fox actually has "anti interest" in understanding 9-11.
I’ve been politically active since 1972 and knew on 9-11, and said “that is a very well planned demolition”. By 2002 I had remembered enough of a documentary seen in 1990 to integrate images into a true depiction of the core of the tower. Three years ago I assembled this page.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
So if you believed in demo and had access to the web you could make a very reasonable 9-11/WTC site, albeit, problems with raw evidence with the official structural design of the twin towers, but still probably a very good presentation, no matter where you were.
In 2004 I took a 400 watt PA and 1kw generator around to local parks and turned it up to talk about controlled demolition, and read the names of the dead. Here are some, copied and pasted from “Z” end.
Tomasevic, Stephen Kevin Tompsett, Thomas Tong, Doris Torres, Luis Eduardo Torres, Amy Elizabeth Toyen, Christopher Michael Traina, Daniel Patrick Trant, Abdoul Karim Traore, Glenn J. Travers, Walter Philip Travers, Felicia Y. Traylor-Bass, James Anthony Trentini, Mary Barbara Trentini, Lisa L. Trerotola, Karamo Trerra, Michael Angel Trinidad, Francis Joseph Trombino, Gregory James Trost, William P. Tselepis, Zhanetta Valentinovna Tsoy, Michael Patrick Tucker, Lance Richard Tumulty, Ching Ping Tung, Simon James Turner, Donald Joseph Tuzio, Robert T. Twomey, Jennifer Tzemis, John G. Ueltzhoeffer, Tyler V. Ugolyn, Michael A. Uliano, Jonathan J. Uman, Anil Shivhari Umarkar, Allen V. Upton, Diane Marie Urban, John Damien Vaccacio, Bradley Hodges Vadas, Renuta Vaidea, William Valcarcel, Felix Antonio Vale, Ivan Vale, Benito Valentin, Santos Valentin Jr., Carlton Francis Valvo II, Pendyala Vamsikrishna, Erica H. Van Acker, Kenneth W. Van Auken, Richard B. Van Hine, Daniel M. Van Laere, Edward Raymond Vanacore, Jon C. Vandevander, Barrett Vanvelzer, Edward Vanvelzer, Paul Herman Vanvelzer, Frederick Thomas Varacchi, Gopalakrishnan Varadhan, David Vargas, Scott C. Vasel, Azael Ismael Vasquez, Arcangel Vazquez, Santos Vazquez, Peter Anthony Vega, Sankara S. Velamuri, Jorge Velazquez, Lawrence G. Veling, Anthony Mark Ventura, David Vera, Loretta Ann Vero, Christopher James Vialonga, Matthew Gilbert Vianna, Robert Anthony Vicario, Celeste Torres Victoria, Joanna Vidal, John T. Vigiano II, Joseph Vincent Vigiano, Frank J. Vignola Jr., Joseph Barry Vilardo, Sergio Villanueva, Chantal Vincelli, Melissa Vincent, Francine Ann Virgilio, Lawrence Virgilio, Joseph Gerard Visciano, Joshua S. Vitale, Maria Percoco Vola, Lynette D. Vosges, Garo H. Voskerijian, Alfred Vukosa, Gregory Kamal Bruno Wachtler, Mary Alice Wahlstrom, Gabriela Waisman, Courtney Wainsworth Walcott, Victor Wald, Kenneth Waldie, Benjamin James Walker, Glen Wall, Mitchel Scott Wallace, Peter Guyder Wallace, Robert Francis Wallace, Roy Michael Wallace, Jeanmarie Wallendorf, Matthew Blake Wallens, John Wallice Jr., Barbara P. Walsh, James Henry Walsh, Jeffrey P. Walz, Ching Wang, Weibin Wang, Michael Warchola, Stephen Gordon Ward, Timothy Ray Ward, James Arthur Waring, Brian G. Warner, Derrick Washington, Charles Waters, James Thomas Waters Jr., Patrick J. Waters, Kenneth Thomas Watson, Michael Henry Waye, Todd Christopher Weaver, Walter Edward Weaver, Nathaniel Webb, Dinah Webster, William Michael Weems, Joanne Flora Weil, Michael T. Weinberg, Steven Weinberg, Scott Jeffrey Weingard, Steven George Weinstein, Simon Weiser, David M. Weiss, David Thomas Weiss, Vincent Michael Wells, Timothy Matthew Welty, Christian Hans Rudolf Wemmers, Ssu-Hui Wen, John Joseph Wenckus, Oleh D. Wengerchuk, Whitfield West Jr., Peter M. West, Meredith Lynn Whalen, Eugene Whelan, Edward James White III, Adam S. White, James Patrick White, John Sylvester White, Kenneth Wilburn White Jr., Leonard Anthony White, Malissa Y. White, Wayne White, Leanne Marie Whiteside, Mark P. Whitford, Michael T. Wholey, Mary Catherine Wieman, Jeffrey David Wiener, Wilham J. Wik, Alison Marie Wildman, Glenn E. Wilkenson, John C. Willett, Louis Calvin Williams III, Brian Patrick Williams, Candace Lee Williams, David J. Williams, Deborah Lynn Williams, Crossley Richard Williams Jr., Kevin Michael Williams, Louie Anthony Williams, John P. Williamson, Donna Ann Wilson, William Wilson, David Harold Winton, Glenn J. Winuk, Thomas Francis Wise, Alan L. Wisniewski, Frank Thomas Wisniewski, David Wiswall, Sigrid Wiswe, Michael Wittenstein, Christopher W. Wodenshek, Martin P. Wohlforth, Katherine Susan Wolf, Jennifer Yen Wong, Siu Cheung Wong, Yin Ping Wong, Yuk Ping Wong, Brent James Woodall, James John Woods, Patrick J. Woods, Richard Herron Woodwell, David Terence Wooley, John Bentley Works, Martin Michael Wortley, Rodney James Wotton, William Wren, John Wayne Wright, Neil Robin Wright, Sandra Lee Wright, Jupiter Yambem, Suresh Yanamadala, Matthew David Yarnell, Myrna Yaskulka, Shakila Yasmin, Olabisi Shadie Layeni Yee, William Yemele, Edward P. York, Kevin Patrick York, Raymond R. York, Suzanne Youmans, Barrington Young, Jacqueline Young, Elkin Yuen, Joseph C. Zaccoli, Adel Agayby Zakhary, Arkady Zaltsman, Edwin J. Zambrana Jr., Robert Alan Zampieri, Mark Zangrilli, Christopher Rudolph Zarba Jr., Ira Zaslow, Kenneth Albert Zelman, Abraham J. Zelmanowitz, Martin Morales Zempoaltecatl, Zhe Zeng, Marc Scott Zeplin, Jie Yao Justin Zhao, Ivelin Ziminski, Michael Joseph Zinzi, Charles A. Zion, Julie Lynne Zipper, Salvatore Zisa, Prokopios Paul Zois, Joseph J. Zuccala, Andrew S. Zucker, Igor Zukelman,
Showing my fellow Americans that there is no reason to be afraid to address the truth. I tried to give away T-shirts. Hey, ..... maybe I can give you one.

email me your mailing address and I'll send you a white hanes T-shirt that says "INVESTIGATE 9-11" in bold red letters. My email is argus1@earthlink.net
XL, L, or medium?
So, ............. would you be more active than that? I would read names and talk about the towers demolition for about 3 hours and invite the public to take the mic and speak their mind.
The scholars may get something done on a hard technical point such as Jones thermite chemistry if some politicos match his science with government science, but until they get a handle on how the core was designed, they will be trying to prove something grossly impossible after the critical fact contrary to the official account they manifest.
It does not establish intent. A lie about the core does. So, ..... if they are going to be social scientists they will have to recoginze that simple fact.
The entire steel core lie is impossible. Steel flexes too much in a building of those proportions, then you cannot cut that much steel into pieces small enough to make them disappear from images. I do explain how the 47 INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS were cut within the tower I know stood. It is practical and feasable whereas the proposition of placing cutting charges (total different sound) around central columns with elevators running adjacent and no containment with drywall/gypsum core walls, then floors, becomes impossible. It might as well just pancaked, whatever.
My opinion is that people basically know it was CD, they are just too afraid to think it.
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 30 2006, 08:17 PM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 30 2006, 06:06 PM)
So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically?
.jpg)
The proof is here but you keep dismissing it, insisting the fall times are possible in a gravity driven 'pancake' hypothosis doesn't make it true. You continue to dismiss the behavoir of the structure during collapse and point us to non existant computer models.
Why are you here?
That stung, eh Len? Don't worry you'll get used to it. Walk it off. I didn't expect you to lay down like you did though, c'mon buddy earn your keep. Are you just going to ignore the photo?
Wow he is able to cut and paste, he must be a genius!
[QUOTE]YID Well considering she cites the erroneous time of 6.6 seconds for the collapse of #7 nothing she states can be taken as fact.
YID, are you two a team now. Nice. I'm excited for you two. Matching collars, no doubt. Ready for another fat eye? Address the photo you asked for.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 05:13 AM)
QUOTE
If a scientist takes this nonsense into account hes not a scientist, hes an idiot.
This kind of attitude is exactly the reason the Scholars forum did not open the floodgates to just anyone. The harrassment would be non-stop and detrimental to our progress.
We are however creating a separate forum for guest members that have alternate views, so that we may have discussions with the skeptics. This forum will be kept free of insults as much as possible.
I think a tiered approach for a guest forum, also, is well advised. Academics tend to lead busy lives, and they don't have time to spend arguing with laymen that have no conception of defending a position (and perhaps no relevant expertise, whatsoever). That would leave me out, also, but that is fine. (I have a conception, but no experience as an academic.)
Plus, I believe anybody and everybody should be able to read the discussions in a members-only forum. What on earth do we have to hide?
If a tiered approach for a guest forum is established, so that Ph.D. scientists and engineers can have some confidence that they will be debating with their peers, then we can appeal to Ph.D. structural engineers to weigh in to the debate, without having to go through any membership process.
Two facets that I believe all forums should have are that they be moderated, and only members who publicly identify themselves should be allowed to participate. That will scare away the timid who don't believe the government Fairy Tales, but don't want to end up in a US Government database, but so be it.
I referred recently to a Ph.D. techy guy with expertise in fluid dynamics, but not by name. The reason that there was no name was because this guy did not want to be publicly identified. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the IP of web sites I direccted him to being logged. And this from a guy who is skeptical that the buildings were CD'd! (We didn't have time to get into the videos of cutter charges snipping along the corners, etc....)
The impressions that the popes want you to have - that a) most structural engineers are familiar with both the NIST report as well as the facts that (mostly) are kept out of the newspapers and b ) aren't scared, or at least timid, to open their mouths when they are knowledgeable in both areas, is ludicrous.
At least, that's the way I see it. And, as I just recently posted, this should not be a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Where is the survey of structural engineers to assess their knowledge of the NIST report, as well as 911 knowledge? Of course, if we had a media worthy of the name, they would have procured such a survey, themselves.
(My disappointment in this regard is not so much the media, which is a lost cause as much as a gangrenous leg, from hip to toe, is a lost cause. It is rather with 911 activists who, hmm, how to put this? , have very different ideas about what is optimal in seeking to make the public in general, and scientists/engineers in particular, aware of the issues. I did note a recent effort to email 700 structural engineers, but I'm not confident such email won't end up in the same place as spam emails.
Then again, it seems to me that the energy of activists in general tends to get wasted, since they have to deal corrupt gatekeepers, as well as intentional efforts aimed at marginalizing them....
Any activists reading this who are interested in replacing our media, please check out my posts in the thread "Putting the NY Times Out of Business" on the Randi Rhodes forums. Also, I have brainstormed a way to create a robust (with sufficient participation) exit polling scheme, that lacks legal standing but at least should make clear when Americans have been cheated out of their votes. An outline for this project has also been posted on the Randi Rhodes forum.
Without an honest media which actively and aggressively facilitates investigative reporting, and without tamper proof voting machines, democracy in the US will remain Orwellian, at best.)
QUOTE
YID, ..... Address the photo you asked for
I don't recall asking for a photo. refresh my memory please.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 05:40 AM)
QUOTE
BECAUSE IN THAT 2 seconds structural intergrity of the entire building has already started to fail. Thus, when , finally, the exterior begins to go, a significant amount of the structural integrity is gone, removed, no longer in the service of keeping the building upright or of offering any resistance to the collapsing exterior!!
Good, you now seem to realise that it's the 6.6 that needs explaining, as you've tried to do here, which was the only point I was making.
No, it needs no explanation. With much of the central structural integrity removed one would expect the rest of the building to fall quickly.
In fact since the original failure IS along the lateral centerline of the building it would be expected that the center of the building would fall first rather than the exterior. Really if you wish to continue arguing that the NIST possible explanations (they go through several and narrow it down to a few by examining them all) then you are simply going to have to read the damn thing.
You state that you don't have to because I and others will post relevant parts of the report here for you. Well I am pretty sure that the administrators of this site don't want me pasting the entire , 5 MB report here.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| BECAUSE IN THAT 2 seconds structural intergrity of the entire building has already started to fail. Thus, when , finally, the exterior begins to go, a significant amount of the structural integrity is gone, removed, no longer in the service of keeping the building upright or of offering any resistance to the collapsing exterior!! |
Good, you now seem to realise that it's the 6.6 that needs explaining, as you've tried to do here, which was the only point I was making.
No, it needs no explanation. With much of the central structural integrity removed one would expect the rest of the building to fall quickly.
In fact since the original failure IS along the lateral centerline of the building it would be expected that the center of the building would fall first rather than the exterior. Really if you wish to continue arguing that the NIST possible explanations (they go through several and narrow it down to a few by examining them all) then you are simply going to have to read the damn thing.
You state that you don't have to because I and others will post relevant parts of the report here for you. Well I am pretty sure that the administrators of this site don't want me pasting the entire , 5 MB report here.
Possible Locations of Collapse Initiation Mechanism
Based on review of the photographic and videographic records, a failure of any column within the plan
area shown in Fig. L–29, and below Floor 13, likely contributed to the collapse initiation. This includes
columns 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, and 81, truss #1, truss #2, column 78A, the east transfer girder and adjacent
framing and floor systems within this region (see Fig. L–30).
L.2.5 Interpretation of Collapse Progression Observations
Interior columns 79, 80, and 81, were located directly below the east penthouse on the roof and supported
large tributary areas. It appears that some sequence of component failures in the region identified in
Figs. L–29 and L–30 led to the failure of one or more of these columns, as discussed above. The failure
progressed vertically upward within the failed bay to the roof level, based upon observations of window
breakage relative to failure of rooftop structures, and was first visible from the exterior when the east
penthouse lost support (see Fig. L–26).
Oh, and I seem to have made a mistake. I said 2 seconds, seems it was longer than that.
QUOTE
The 5 s to 6 s delay between the failure of the east penthouse and the failure of the screenwall and west
penthouse (shown in Fig. L–27) approximates the time it would take for the debris pile from the vertical
failure progression on the east side of the building to reach Floors 5 to 7 and damage the transfer trusses
and girders in this area.
A kink developed in the north facade approximately where column 76 projects to the north face. The
kink may have formed in the plane of the north facade or it may represent a displacement in the structure
along this line towards the south. The area of this kink correlates to the easternmost cantilever transfer at
Floor 7. All of the Floor 7 cantilever transfer girders had back spans supported along the line of the north
core columns, of which the easternmost one was supported by truss # 1. This north facade kink also
coincides with the girders at the eastern edge of the cooling tower area at Floor 46.
When the screenwall and the west penthouse sank into the building, a line of windows broke from
Floor 44 down to the bottom of the visible range, which is approximately at Floor 33 on the west side of
the structure (see Fig. L–27). This area aligns with column 61, which is supported by the cantilevered
end of transfer truss #3 between Floors 5 and 7, as shown in Fig. L–31. This suggests that the observed
window breakage may be related to the failure of column 61 or truss #3.
penthouse (shown in Fig. L–27) approximates the time it would take for the debris pile from the vertical
failure progression on the east side of the building to reach Floors 5 to 7 and damage the transfer trusses
and girders in this area.
A kink developed in the north facade approximately where column 76 projects to the north face. The
kink may have formed in the plane of the north facade or it may represent a displacement in the structure
along this line towards the south. The area of this kink correlates to the easternmost cantilever transfer at
Floor 7. All of the Floor 7 cantilever transfer girders had back spans supported along the line of the north
core columns, of which the easternmost one was supported by truss # 1. This north facade kink also
coincides with the girders at the eastern edge of the cooling tower area at Floor 46.
When the screenwall and the west penthouse sank into the building, a line of windows broke from
Floor 44 down to the bottom of the visible range, which is approximately at Floor 33 on the west side of
the structure (see Fig. L–27). This area aligns with column 61, which is supported by the cantilevered
end of transfer truss #3 between Floors 5 and 7, as shown in Fig. L–31. This suggests that the observed
window breakage may be related to the failure of column 61 or truss #3.
Now that above is only the examination(and not the entire portion of the report dealing with it) that deals with the most possible mechanism of collapse. They also examine other, less likely senarios and give the reasons why they are less likely.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 12:13 AM)
QUOTE
If a scientist takes this nonsense into account hes not a scientist, hes an idiot.
This kind of attitude is exactly the reason the Scholars forum did not open the floodgates to just anyone. The harrassment would be non-stop and detrimental to our progress.
We are however creating a separate forum for guest members that have alternate views, so that we may have discussions with the skeptics. This forum will be kept free of insults as much as possible.
You're being hypocritical because Metamars is saying we believe in fairy tales. What's that if it's not calling us idiots. I would never have said they were idiots if people like Metamars didn't passively call us the same.
Look back at the first posts of this thread and you'll note who insults who first.
QUOTE
by YID
{re: http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_089185930.html }
He did not see the aircraft hit. He is referring to the aircraft impact and fireball.
This 911 call was received just after the plane impact.
Of course he did no say it sounded like an explosion. An aircraft smacking a building and having its fuel ignite in a large fireball IS an explosion.
{re: http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_089185930.html }
He did not see the aircraft hit. He is referring to the aircraft impact and fireball.
This 911 call was received just after the plane impact.
Of course he did no say it sounded like an explosion. An aircraft smacking a building and having its fuel ignite in a large fireball IS an explosion.
Well, I have to admit that you may be correct on this particular point,YID.
I received the email, and my initial read gave me the impression that Hanleys call was from near the collapse time. After re-reading I see that that was an unjustified conclusion.
Although... on reading the entire transcript of the call (from another source), neither did I find any reference to the actual time of the call, so it is not clear to me that you are any more justified than I in jumping to the conclusion regarding the time frame.
Do you have a specific reference that states the exact time of his call - to justify your interpretation?
It doesn't really matter anyway. Even if Hanleys call was in reference to the plane impact, there are far too many witnesses to explosive effects to just dismiss ALL of their testimonies (as though they were refering to 'transformer explosions').
The statements made by NIST regarding the explosion on the 77th floor is a dead giveaway in my opinion. Even though they do not CALL the effect an explosion, it is clear from their description that that is exactly what it was.
The hundreds of other witnesses who also testify to explosions and brisant flashes also support the conclusion... whereas 'transformer' explosions can not account for all the effects that happened (even though some 'explosions' may have been due to misinterpreted effects such as transformers or other 'normal' occurances).
QUOTE
by No-Sense
Look back at the first posts of this thread and you'll note who insults who first.
Look back at the first posts of this thread and you'll note who insults who first.
Yep, I'll have to agree that that is as clear as a bell - It was Schneibster (in his second post).
VIVA CHAVEZ
As usual Alex Jones uses hyperbole but it may be promising - time will tell.
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
-Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez this week embarked on a groundbreaking trip to Caracas Venezuela in which they met with with the President of the Assembly and will soon meet with Venezuelan President himself Hugo Chavez in anticipation of an official Venezuelan government investigation into 9/11. ---
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...vestigation.htm
As frater has said more than once, physics will not settle this in a meaningful way. The cumulative evidence that September 11 was an inside job is literally overwhelming, so much so that any objective jury would need less than ten minutes to deliberate and reach the already established conclusion that -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
As usual Alex Jones uses hyperbole but it may be promising - time will tell.
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
-Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez this week embarked on a groundbreaking trip to Caracas Venezuela in which they met with with the President of the Assembly and will soon meet with Venezuelan President himself Hugo Chavez in anticipation of an official Venezuelan government investigation into 9/11. ---
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...vestigation.htm
As frater has said more than once, physics will not settle this in a meaningful way. The cumulative evidence that September 11 was an inside job is literally overwhelming, so much so that any objective jury would need less than ten minutes to deliberate and reach the already established conclusion that -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 31 2006, 12:15 AM)
AP reports explosion on the 105th floor !!!...
from newly released documents... published - Friday March 31, 2006...
(Must have been 'transformers' on every floor)

(AP) NEW YORK Christopher Hanley had to repeat his story to two different dispatchers after calling 911 from the Windows on the World restaurant on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Yeah. Hi. I'm on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center. We just had an explosion on the, on the like 105th floor," Hanley, 35, told an operator. Later, he says, 'We have smoke and — it's pretty bad." An operator tells him to "sit tight. Do not leave, OK?"
Hanley, who died in the trade center, was one of 28 people identified among about 130 emergency calls the city planned to release Friday. Hanley's parents shared the tape with The New York Times, which had sued the city for access to all the calls.
http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_089185930.html
Note that he doesn't say it "Sounded" like an explosion --- he states "We just HAD AN EXPLOSION"
Poor Mr. Hanley must've been a CTer just before he died.
The plane you moron. As if they would know what floor exactly...
I knew these pieces of shiit would twist the words of dead people to further their political views. It sickens me to no end.
Foxx, I would spit on your grave you sack of shiit.
from newly released documents... published - Friday March 31, 2006...
(Must have been 'transformers' on every floor)
QUOTE
(AP) NEW YORK Christopher Hanley had to repeat his story to two different dispatchers after calling 911 from the Windows on the World restaurant on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Yeah. Hi. I'm on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center. We just had an explosion on the, on the like 105th floor," Hanley, 35, told an operator. Later, he says, 'We have smoke and — it's pretty bad." An operator tells him to "sit tight. Do not leave, OK?"
Hanley, who died in the trade center, was one of 28 people identified among about 130 emergency calls the city planned to release Friday. Hanley's parents shared the tape with The New York Times, which had sued the city for access to all the calls.
http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_089185930.html
Note that he doesn't say it "Sounded" like an explosion --- he states "We just HAD AN EXPLOSION"
Poor Mr. Hanley must've been a CTer just before he died.
The plane you moron. As if they would know what floor exactly...
I knew these pieces of shiit would twist the words of dead people to further their political views. It sickens me to no end.
Foxx, I would spit on your grave you sack of shiit.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 12:27 AM)
QUOTE
How can you even type that and sleep at night.
The penthouse and other roof top structures falling in illustrate that central load bearing columns were failing.
That is an element of the collapse, pure and simple.
The loads they were bearing were then distributed to the other central columns that survived this initial failure and to the perimeter walls. When those structural elements were overloaded they failed and since there was no where else to distribute the load the remaining structure all fails virtually simultaneously as all remaining elements quickly are overloaded well beyond design.
The penthouse and other roof top structures falling in illustrate that central load bearing columns were failing.
That is an element of the collapse, pure and simple.
The loads they were bearing were then distributed to the other central columns that survived this initial failure and to the perimeter walls. When those structural elements were overloaded they failed and since there was no where else to distribute the load the remaining structure all fails virtually simultaneously as all remaining elements quickly are overloaded well beyond design.
The roofline fell in 6.6 seconds, and THAT is what we must compare to free-fall. How you explain the 6.6 seconds is a different matter, but 6.6 IS the figure you have to try to justify, NOT 6.6 + 2 as you were trying to claim.
Those penthouses went somewhere. They didn't fall out the front so you can only conculde they fell out the already open back of the bulding. This makes perfect sense since the back of the building would be the path of lest resistence.
With a hole in the south made larger internally by the falling penthouse, And the large amount of columns which must have been severed low to the ground as a result, and the intact columns pulling on the top of the building dragging everything on the sides of the falling penthouse down, HOW COULDN'T the building fall as fast as it did???
If I'm right, I predict the back of the building 7 looked a lot like the OK. bombing just after the penthouse fell. The difference is the construction of the two and the fires/locations.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 12:40 AM)
QUOTE
BECAUSE IN THAT 2 seconds structural intergrity of the entire building has already started to fail. Thus, when , finally, the exterior begins to go, a significant amount of the structural integrity is gone, removed, no longer in the service of keeping the building upright or of offering any resistance to the collapsing exterior!!
Good, you now seem to realise that it's the 6.6 that needs explaining, as you've tried to do here, which was the only point I was making.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| BECAUSE IN THAT 2 seconds structural intergrity of the entire building has already started to fail. Thus, when , finally, the exterior begins to go, a significant amount of the structural integrity is gone, removed, no longer in the service of keeping the building upright or of offering any resistance to the collapsing exterior!! |
Good, you now seem to realise that it's the 6.6 that needs explaining, as you've tried to do here, which was the only point I was making.
My point in the other post is only a fool would have supported GWB at all at any time. But that's MHO.
Excellent point. I will gladly stand aside due to being a fool if everyone who's been a republican at some point in the last 7 years who supports the OCT will do the same.
The only person I know of who MAY be a republican is Arthur. The rest of us on the rational side have always maintained Bush and co are idiots.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Mar 31 2006, 02:46 AM)
lenbrazil
Posted: Mar 31 2006, 01:52 AM
Report Post
QUOTE
I like to sit on the fence. The evidence was carted away pretty quickly. It's like trying to do a jigsaw without all the pieces......
Why are you injecting one sided politics then?
Posted: Mar 31 2006, 01:52 AM
Report Post
QUOTE
QUOTE
...but I have NEVER seen you make any kind of scientific argument in favor of CD, please explain. Also why don't you write a paper?
I like to sit on the fence. The evidence was carted away pretty quickly. It's like trying to do a jigsaw without all the pieces......
Why are you injecting one sided politics then?
Heres a thought, why not join a civil engineering forum instead. I'd love to see that. Heh!
Common Sense, have you found any pictures of indoor dry transformers exploding or even arcing from within the heavy steel enclosure (I think you previously referred to it as a vault)?
The reason you will not find a picture of indoor transformers exploding is breakers( For safety and damage control) and the type of transformer. The dangerous oil transformers that commonly explode are outdoors (on poles or surrounded by fence).
Do you have another reasonable explanation for the flashes ?
The reason you will not find a picture of indoor transformers exploding is breakers( For safety and damage control) and the type of transformer. The dangerous oil transformers that commonly explode are outdoors (on poles or surrounded by fence).
Do you have another reasonable explanation for the flashes ?
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 31 2006, 10:54 AM)
QUOTE
by No-Sense
Look back at the first posts of this thread and you'll note who insults who first.
Look back at the first posts of this thread and you'll note who insults who first.
Yep, I'll have to agree that that is as clear as a bell - It was Schneibster (in his second post).
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=28607
a_ht was being bited since the second page by Newton. Then farang said "I believe you to be an Israeli disinformation agent.".
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=28951
How is someone suposed to take that if it's not an insult? No way to spin that one foxx.
To which he then said this as a joke, no doubt he couldn't beleve the reply...
I am not an Israely information agent, and I take offense.
I work at the American society of civil engineer, an office which contributed massively at the NIST report. I work at the public relation department, so if I seem angry when I post, its because my *** is on the line; they want to shut down our department because of people like you who oppose the official version. Politicians don't want another scandal
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29009
And the shiit hit the fan afterwards.
Mister prim and proper Metamars pops in with his "Fair tale" posts and 14 font well before I ever became a member...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29623
it's in this context that Schneibster joins after reading all the insults being hurlled at a_ht.
The proof is here for all to see foxx, YOU'RE LYING AGAIN...
reasonwhy,
You conspired with the willful ignorant here to make another thread for concrete core discussion. You made that thread with it's distorted title.
I changed the title so I could post in it with the integrity information based on raw evidence deserves.
You asked questions and I've reasonably answered them then you do not respond at all, let alone reasonably. Got integrity? Try following through.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637
This group effort to displace the core issue to another thread looks more like a method to get away from good questions that deserve real answers than it does to purify discussion about the demolition. So much so that now the discussion has moved away from the twin towers to # 7.
Is this because when talk of core issues ensues, I interupt and correct erroneous assumptions with reasonable information?
Wonder why it is so important the towers did not have concrete cores.
Not one reasonable explanation has EVER been put forth for why the 47, 1,300 foot columns do not show in photos where they should.
You conspired with the willful ignorant here to make another thread for concrete core discussion. You made that thread with it's distorted title.
I changed the title so I could post in it with the integrity information based on raw evidence deserves.
You asked questions and I've reasonably answered them then you do not respond at all, let alone reasonably. Got integrity? Try following through.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637
This group effort to displace the core issue to another thread looks more like a method to get away from good questions that deserve real answers than it does to purify discussion about the demolition. So much so that now the discussion has moved away from the twin towers to # 7.
Is this because when talk of core issues ensues, I interupt and correct erroneous assumptions with reasonable information?
Wonder why it is so important the towers did not have concrete cores.
Not one reasonable explanation has EVER been put forth for why the 47, 1,300 foot columns do not show in photos where they should.
Christophera, you did not respond to my post on the other thread for days. I will answer when I have time.
Please stop spamming this thread.
Please stop spamming this thread.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 31 2006, 05:22 PM)
Christophera, you did not respond to my post on the other thread for days. I will answer when I have time.
Please stop spamming this thread.
I responded to the original question immediately, you never indicated in continuation (reasonably) that the fact that concrete can fracture and fall instantly has an obvious relation to free fall.
You instead posted another question, which I did'nt notice for a few days but is now answered with a detailed answer that shows a fully feasable method to get the square cut column ends we see.
It sounds like your response to my answer to your question (based on the lack of response to the 1st) is that you have no response other than your attempt to label my substancial and relative information as spam?
Is this how you deal with absolutly relative information difficult to explain away because of it's intrinsic relation to critical aspect of discussion?
Please stop spamming this thread.
I responded to the original question immediately, you never indicated in continuation (reasonably) that the fact that concrete can fracture and fall instantly has an obvious relation to free fall.
You instead posted another question, which I did'nt notice for a few days but is now answered with a detailed answer that shows a fully feasable method to get the square cut column ends we see.
It sounds like your response to my answer to your question (based on the lack of response to the 1st) is that you have no response other than your attempt to label my substancial and relative information as spam?
Is this how you deal with absolutly relative information difficult to explain away because of it's intrinsic relation to critical aspect of discussion?
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 31 2006, 03:51 PM)
QUOTE
by YID
{re: http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_089185930.html }
He did not see the aircraft hit. He is referring to the aircraft impact and fireball.
This 911 call was received just after the plane impact.
Of course he did no say it sounded like an explosion. An aircraft smacking a building and having its fuel ignite in a large fireball IS an explosion.
{re: http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_089185930.html }
He did not see the aircraft hit. He is referring to the aircraft impact and fireball.
This 911 call was received just after the plane impact.
Of course he did no say it sounded like an explosion. An aircraft smacking a building and having its fuel ignite in a large fireball IS an explosion.
Well, I have to admit that you may be correct on this particular point,YID.
I received the email, and my initial read gave me the impression that Hanleys call was from near the collapse time. After re-reading I see that that was an unjustified conclusion.
Although... on reading the entire transcript of the call (from another source), neither did I find any reference to the actual time of the call, so it is not clear to me that you are any more justified than I in jumping to the conclusion regarding the time frame.
Do you have a specific reference that states the exact time of his call - to justify your interpretation?
It doesn't really matter anyway. Even if Hanleys call was in reference to the plane impact, there are far too many witnesses to explosive effects to just dismiss ALL of their testimonies (as though they were refering to 'transformer explosions').
The statements made by NIST regarding the explosion on the 77th floor is a dead giveaway in my opinion. Even though they do not CALL the effect an explosion, it is clear from their description that that is exactly what it was.
The hundreds of other witnesses who also testify to explosions and brisant flashes also support the conclusion... whereas 'transformer' explosions can not account for all the effects that happened (even though some 'explosions' may have been due to misinterpreted effects such as transformers or other 'normal' occurances).
Four minutes after the first aircraft hit this call was rcvd by 911 operator.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/30/911.calls...p.ap/index.html
Once again I ask, if a collapsing building that has interior floors and columns snapping and falling, just what is it supposed to sound like? a hiss? a whoosh?
Cracks appeared in the walls before the collapses. The building was shifting. My lil' ol' house shifts during the winter and makes cracking and sometimes booming noises. If a 110 story building is shifting loads in ways that the designers had not anticiapted as a normal , day to day occurances just what would that sound like? A hiss? a whoosh? a ping?
QUOTE (brian+Mar 31 2006, 03:57 PM)
VIVA CHAVEZ
As usual Alex Jones uses hyperbole but it may be promising - time will tell.
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
-Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez this week embarked on a groundbreaking trip to Caracas Venezuela in which they met with with the President of the Assembly and will soon meet with Venezuelan President himself Hugo Chavez in anticipation of an official Venezuelan government investigation into 9/11. ---
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...vestigation.htm
As frater has said more than once, physics will not settle this in a meaningful way. The cumulative evidence that September 11 was an inside job is literally overwhelming, so much so that any objective jury would need less than ten minutes to deliberate and reach the already established conclusion that -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
If you believe that, then post political, non-science subjects elsewhere. They are not science, physics or engineering related. Please note the name of the forum, the sub-forum and this thread.
As usual Alex Jones uses hyperbole but it may be promising - time will tell.
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
-Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez this week embarked on a groundbreaking trip to Caracas Venezuela in which they met with with the President of the Assembly and will soon meet with Venezuelan President himself Hugo Chavez in anticipation of an official Venezuelan government investigation into 9/11. ---
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...vestigation.htm
As frater has said more than once, physics will not settle this in a meaningful way. The cumulative evidence that September 11 was an inside job is literally overwhelming, so much so that any objective jury would need less than ten minutes to deliberate and reach the already established conclusion that -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
QUOTE
As frater has said more than once, physics will not settle this in a meaningful way. The cumulative evidence that September 11 was an inside job is literally overwhelming, so much so that any objective jury would need less than ten minutes to deliberate and reach the already established conclusion that -
If you believe that, then post political, non-science subjects elsewhere. They are not science, physics or engineering related. Please note the name of the forum, the sub-forum and this thread.
QUOTE
Christophera writes:
Wonder why it is so important the towers did not have concrete cores.
Wonder why it is so important the towers did not have concrete cores.
Important?
The fact is that the core was not made of concrete in the fashion you insist it was. The floors were concrete in the core, not the walls.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Christophera writes: Wonder why it is so important the towers did not have concrete cores. |
Important?
The fact is that the core was not made of concrete in the fashion you insist it was. The floors were concrete in the core, not the walls.
Christophera writes:
Not one reasonable explanation has EVER been put forth for why the 47, 1,300 foot columns do not show in photos where they should.
Yes there has been. Your picture is greatly obscured by smoke and dust for one thing.
Secondly the columns broke. None of those columns were continuous all the way to the top. There were constructed of lengths that were bolted and welded to gether. They were not even a continuous size all the way up. Such a column is most likely to snap at or near the connection point. The connection will in fact be stiffer than the nearby section of the column. No column will bend or flex as well near a connection as it would along its length.
The first place that any one column would have the greatest likely hood of snapping would probably be on the initial collapse floors since those columns may have already been weakened by heat. Your photo could be the momentary view of the core with floor remanants hanging off of it , from the 81st floor or so, before the core itself buckles and falls too. Frankly that is something that is more likely(IMHO) to have happened to WTC 2 than with WTC 1 since #2's collapse was somewhat more assymetrical.
So stop with the idea that the columns should be seen extending their full length.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 31 2006, 11:43 AM)
Common Sense, have you found any pictures of indoor dry transformers exploding or even arcing from within the heavy steel enclosure (I think you previously referred to it as a vault)?
The reason you will not find a picture of indoor transformers exploding is breakers( For safety and damage control) and the type of transformer. The dangerous oil transformers that commonly explode are outdoors (on poles or surrounded by fence).
Do you have another reasonable explanation for the flashes ?

You may not find arcs in a photo/video because someone has to be ready for them. Just as with this above powerline which arced and went out 50 seconds after. This guy just happen to have his camera ready. An abnormal amount of time for a electrical arc for the same reasons you mentioned. But if you think a breaker will stop an arc from flashing I invite you to test this theory. *AT YOUR OWN RISK* Just get a wire peel the ends and stick it in a socket. It will flash before the breaker trips. Keep a fire extinguisher handy.
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
Do you have any videos of explosives which cut steel and flash orange first then red?
"and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building"
You can see from the transformer video electrical shorts are colored. The word "POPPING" isn't associated with explosives. I've heard guns sounding like pop's but not explosives. Especially an explosive which would cut steel.
Another point is that each floor would have a breaker box which tied into some type of electrical main breaker room. The boxes above must have severed as the building collapsed. They had to regardless of how the building collased.

The office building I work in is small and has a large distribution panel like this. I can imagine what the towers must have had.
But that aside, simple shorts on main trunks could have caused the effect.
The reason you will not find a picture of indoor transformers exploding is breakers( For safety and damage control) and the type of transformer. The dangerous oil transformers that commonly explode are outdoors (on poles or surrounded by fence).
Do you have another reasonable explanation for the flashes ?

You may not find arcs in a photo/video because someone has to be ready for them. Just as with this above powerline which arced and went out 50 seconds after. This guy just happen to have his camera ready. An abnormal amount of time for a electrical arc for the same reasons you mentioned. But if you think a breaker will stop an arc from flashing I invite you to test this theory. *AT YOUR OWN RISK* Just get a wire peel the ends and stick it in a socket. It will flash before the breaker trips. Keep a fire extinguisher handy.
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
Do you have any videos of explosives which cut steel and flash orange first then red?
"and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building"
You can see from the transformer video electrical shorts are colored. The word "POPPING" isn't associated with explosives. I've heard guns sounding like pop's but not explosives. Especially an explosive which would cut steel.
Another point is that each floor would have a breaker box which tied into some type of electrical main breaker room. The boxes above must have severed as the building collapsed. They had to regardless of how the building collased.
The office building I work in is small and has a large distribution panel like this. I can imagine what the towers must have had.
But that aside, simple shorts on main trunks could have caused the effect.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 31 2006, 06:21 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 31 2006, 03:57 PM)
VIVA CHAVEZ
As usual Alex Jones uses hyperbole but it may be promising - time will tell.
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
-Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez this week embarked on a groundbreaking trip to Caracas Venezuela in which they met with with the President of the Assembly and will soon meet with Venezuelan President himself Hugo Chavez in anticipation of an official Venezuelan government investigation into 9/11. ---
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...vestigation.htm
As frater has said more than once, physics will not settle this in a meaningful way. The cumulative evidence that September 11 was an inside job is literally overwhelming, so much so that any objective jury would need less than ten minutes to deliberate and reach the already established conclusion that -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
If you believe that, then post political, non-science subjects elsewhere. They are not science, physics or engineering related. Please note the name of the forum, the sub-forum and this thread.
YID, I, like everyone else, will decide what I consider relevant and unless I am stopped from posting you will just have to live with it. You and others would like to keep up this endless obfuscation whilst I see from many posts that not all are up to the level required to enter the scientific debate but are interested in the subject.
The controlled demolition of the towers did not happen in a vacumn, the surrounding issues make it all the easier for people to see that September 11 was indeed an inside job.
No, as a matter of fact, the surrounding issues make it quite clear that September 11 was an inside job and they make it easier for people to see that you and your ilk are only concerned in muddying the waters.
Anyway, as far as I and a great many are concerned the first post on this thread settles the issue and your endless repetition will not change the fact that we are now in the position where we can say -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
-with no fear of meaningful contradiction.
Come to terms with it.
Important?
The fact is that the core was not made of concrete in the fashion you insist it was. The floors were concrete in the core, not the walls.
Important?
The fact is that the core was not made of concrete in the fashion you insist it was. The floors were concrete in the core, not the walls.
Christophera writes:
Not one reasonable explanation has EVER been put forth for why the 47, 1,300 foot columns do not show in photos where they should.
Yes there has been. Your picture is greatly obscured by smoke and dust for one thing.
Secondly the columns broke. None of those columns were continuous all the way to the top. There were constructed of lengths that were bolted and welded to gether. They were not even a continuous size all the way up. Such a column is most likely to snap at or near the connection point. The connection will in fact be stiffer than the nearby section of the column. No column will bend or flex as well near a connection as it would along its length.
The first place that any one column would have the greatest likely hood of snapping would probably be on the initial collapse floors since those columns may have already been weakened by heat. Your photo could be the momentary view of the core with floor remanants hanging off of it , from the 81st floor or so, before the core itself buckles and falls too. Frankly that is something that is more likely(IMHO) to have happened to WTC 2 than with WTC 1 since #2's collapse was somewhat more assymetrical.
So stop with the idea that the columns should be seen extending their full length.
You are supporting the government version of the structure that serves the lie.

There is not enough smoke and dust to say it is obscured in a significant way.
Tempered steel columns do not just break and the only columns seen are outside the core area as in these images.

In the below image the concrete wall is seen behind the interior box columns.

Apparently you do not understand the concept of a 100% weld. It essentially makes a continous piece of steel. No snapping or tearing until AFTER major bending unless in situations of extreme shear, which always shows at the break. You are correct that it will break adjacent to the weld, but neglect to mention the needed bending or indicate signs of shear with raw evidence. The columns we see are cleanly cut with no deformations. You will find no sign of butt connections with bolts on the interior box columns.
You also distort my statements to indicate that I believe they should be seen at their full length. I do not and have not said so. I have simply asked why any of the columns do not appear protruding in ANY of the images that show the inner core area.
metamars, I think the reason is that the forum allows us to discuss the scientific merit, or lack of, of some of the more contentious aspects of 9/11 truth (no plane theories etc), without worrying that this discussion will be taken as an endorsement of the theory.
YID,
metamars, I think the reason is that the forum allows us to discuss the scientific merit, or lack of, of some of the more contentious aspects of 9/11 truth (no plane theories etc), without worrying that this discussion will be taken as an endorsement of the theory.
YID,
No, it needs no explanation. With much of the central structural integrity removed one would expect the rest of the building to fall quickly.
But your second sentence IS an explanation. Look, I'm not making any comment on how you explain the near free-fall collapse of the visible face of the building, only that you DO have to account for it (which you are now doing by talking about damage done by the penthouse collapse).
I was simply taking issue with you trying to claim that 6.6s was not an actual collapse rate. It WAS a collapse rate, of the visible face of the building.
ps. Please don't address Christophera in this thread, he will only keep spamming.
Common sense,
You make it sound like the majority of the south face wasn't there, when your own quotes put the gash at 16-20 stories out of 47. You still haven't shown me the quotes that give an idea of how deep this gash went.
You make it sound like the majority of the south face wasn't there, when your own quotes put the gash at 16-20 stories out of 47. You still haven't shown me the quotes that give an idea of how deep this gash went.
With a hole in the south made larger internally by the falling penthouse, And the large amount of columns which must have been severed low to the ground as a result, and the intact columns pulling on the top of the building dragging everything on the sides of the falling penthouse down, HOW COULDN'T the building fall as fast as it did???
You would have to wonder, if there was this huge hole on one side of the building that offered the least resistance, why this did not cause the building to tilt toward that lower resistance, as the top of the south tower did.
That is pure guesswork. And comparing to the Murrah sounds to me like rather wild hyperbole.
That is pure guesswork. And comparing to the Murrah sounds to me like rather wild hyperbole.
The only person I know of who MAY be a republican is Arthur. The rest of us on the rational side have always maintained Bush and co are idiots.
I was talking about the WHOLE of the US, not just this thread. If a criteria for being a fool is having supported Bush at some stage, then lets also discount all those NIST experts etc who would fall into that same category.
As usual Alex Jones uses hyperbole but it may be promising - time will tell.
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
-Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez this week embarked on a groundbreaking trip to Caracas Venezuela in which they met with with the President of the Assembly and will soon meet with Venezuelan President himself Hugo Chavez in anticipation of an official Venezuelan government investigation into 9/11. ---
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...vestigation.htm
As frater has said more than once, physics will not settle this in a meaningful way. The cumulative evidence that September 11 was an inside job is literally overwhelming, so much so that any objective jury would need less than ten minutes to deliberate and reach the already established conclusion that -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
QUOTE
As frater has said more than once, physics will not settle this in a meaningful way. The cumulative evidence that September 11 was an inside job is literally overwhelming, so much so that any objective jury would need less than ten minutes to deliberate and reach the already established conclusion that -
If you believe that, then post political, non-science subjects elsewhere. They are not science, physics or engineering related. Please note the name of the forum, the sub-forum and this thread.
YID, I, like everyone else, will decide what I consider relevant and unless I am stopped from posting you will just have to live with it. You and others would like to keep up this endless obfuscation whilst I see from many posts that not all are up to the level required to enter the scientific debate but are interested in the subject.
The controlled demolition of the towers did not happen in a vacumn, the surrounding issues make it all the easier for people to see that September 11 was indeed an inside job.
No, as a matter of fact, the surrounding issues make it quite clear that September 11 was an inside job and they make it easier for people to see that you and your ilk are only concerned in muddying the waters.
Anyway, as far as I and a great many are concerned the first post on this thread settles the issue and your endless repetition will not change the fact that we are now in the position where we can say -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
-with no fear of meaningful contradiction.
Come to terms with it.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 31 2006, 06:34 PM)
QUOTE
Christophera writes:
Wonder why it is so important the towers did not have concrete cores.
Wonder why it is so important the towers did not have concrete cores.
Important?
The fact is that the core was not made of concrete in the fashion you insist it was. The floors were concrete in the core, not the walls.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Christophera writes: Wonder why it is so important the towers did not have concrete cores. |
Important?
The fact is that the core was not made of concrete in the fashion you insist it was. The floors were concrete in the core, not the walls.
Christophera writes:
Not one reasonable explanation has EVER been put forth for why the 47, 1,300 foot columns do not show in photos where they should.
Yes there has been. Your picture is greatly obscured by smoke and dust for one thing.
Secondly the columns broke. None of those columns were continuous all the way to the top. There were constructed of lengths that were bolted and welded to gether. They were not even a continuous size all the way up. Such a column is most likely to snap at or near the connection point. The connection will in fact be stiffer than the nearby section of the column. No column will bend or flex as well near a connection as it would along its length.
The first place that any one column would have the greatest likely hood of snapping would probably be on the initial collapse floors since those columns may have already been weakened by heat. Your photo could be the momentary view of the core with floor remanants hanging off of it , from the 81st floor or so, before the core itself buckles and falls too. Frankly that is something that is more likely(IMHO) to have happened to WTC 2 than with WTC 1 since #2's collapse was somewhat more assymetrical.
So stop with the idea that the columns should be seen extending their full length.
You are supporting the government version of the structure that serves the lie.

There is not enough smoke and dust to say it is obscured in a significant way.
Tempered steel columns do not just break and the only columns seen are outside the core area as in these images.

In the below image the concrete wall is seen behind the interior box columns.

Apparently you do not understand the concept of a 100% weld. It essentially makes a continous piece of steel. No snapping or tearing until AFTER major bending unless in situations of extreme shear, which always shows at the break. You are correct that it will break adjacent to the weld, but neglect to mention the needed bending or indicate signs of shear with raw evidence. The columns we see are cleanly cut with no deformations. You will find no sign of butt connections with bolts on the interior box columns.
You also distort my statements to indicate that I believe they should be seen at their full length. I do not and have not said so. I have simply asked why any of the columns do not appear protruding in ANY of the images that show the inner core area.
Yesitdid, just let them waste time on everything other than the collapse. It only shows a frustration with the facts. They are left with poilitics in place of evidence. I think it works to our favor. HEHE
QUOTE
Plus, I believe anybody and everybody should be able to read the discussions in a members-only forum. What on earth do we have to hide?
metamars, I think the reason is that the forum allows us to discuss the scientific merit, or lack of, of some of the more contentious aspects of 9/11 truth (no plane theories etc), without worrying that this discussion will be taken as an endorsement of the theory.
YID,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Plus, I believe anybody and everybody should be able to read the discussions in a members-only forum. What on earth do we have to hide? |
metamars, I think the reason is that the forum allows us to discuss the scientific merit, or lack of, of some of the more contentious aspects of 9/11 truth (no plane theories etc), without worrying that this discussion will be taken as an endorsement of the theory.
YID,
No, it needs no explanation. With much of the central structural integrity removed one would expect the rest of the building to fall quickly.
But your second sentence IS an explanation. Look, I'm not making any comment on how you explain the near free-fall collapse of the visible face of the building, only that you DO have to account for it (which you are now doing by talking about damage done by the penthouse collapse).
I was simply taking issue with you trying to claim that 6.6s was not an actual collapse rate. It WAS a collapse rate, of the visible face of the building.
ps. Please don't address Christophera in this thread, he will only keep spamming.
Common sense,
QUOTE
Those penthouses went somewhere. They didn't fall out the front so you can only conculde they fell out the already open back of the bulding. This makes perfect sense since the back of the building would be the path of lest resistence.
You make it sound like the majority of the south face wasn't there, when your own quotes put the gash at 16-20 stories out of 47. You still haven't shown me the quotes that give an idea of how deep this gash went.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Those penthouses went somewhere. They didn't fall out the front so you can only conculde they fell out the already open back of the bulding. This makes perfect sense since the back of the building would be the path of lest resistence. |
You make it sound like the majority of the south face wasn't there, when your own quotes put the gash at 16-20 stories out of 47. You still haven't shown me the quotes that give an idea of how deep this gash went.
With a hole in the south made larger internally by the falling penthouse, And the large amount of columns which must have been severed low to the ground as a result, and the intact columns pulling on the top of the building dragging everything on the sides of the falling penthouse down, HOW COULDN'T the building fall as fast as it did???
You would have to wonder, if there was this huge hole on one side of the building that offered the least resistance, why this did not cause the building to tilt toward that lower resistance, as the top of the south tower did.
QUOTE
If I'm right, I predict the back of the building 7 looked a lot like the OK. bombing just after the penthouse fell. The difference is the construction of the two and the fires/locations.
That is pure guesswork. And comparing to the Murrah sounds to me like rather wild hyperbole.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If I'm right, I predict the back of the building 7 looked a lot like the OK. bombing just after the penthouse fell. The difference is the construction of the two and the fires/locations. |
That is pure guesswork. And comparing to the Murrah sounds to me like rather wild hyperbole.
The only person I know of who MAY be a republican is Arthur. The rest of us on the rational side have always maintained Bush and co are idiots.
I was talking about the WHOLE of the US, not just this thread. If a criteria for being a fool is having supported Bush at some stage, then lets also discount all those NIST experts etc who would fall into that same category.
Anyone who asks Christophera a question or responds to his cement core is also spamming the thread.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 31 2006, 10:52 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 31 2006, 11:43 AM)
Common Sense, have you found any pictures of indoor dry transformers exploding or even arcing from within the heavy steel enclosure (I think you previously referred to it as a vault)?
The reason you will not find a picture of indoor transformers exploding is breakers( For safety and damage control) and the type of transformer. The dangerous oil transformers that commonly explode are outdoors (on poles or surrounded by fence).
Do you have another reasonable explanation for the flashes ?

You may not find arcs in a photo/video because someone has to be ready for them. Just as with this above powerline which arced and went out 50 seconds after. This guy just happen to have his camera ready. An abnormal amount of time for a electrical arc for the same reasons you mentioned. But if you think a breaker will stop an arc from flashing I invite you to test this theory. *AT YOUR OWN RISK* Just get a wire peel the ends and stick it in a socket. It will flash before the breaker trips. Keep a fire extinguisher handy.
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
Do you have any videos of explosives which cut steel and flash orange first then red?
"and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building"
You can see from the transformer video electrical shorts are colored. The word "POPPING" isn't associated with explosives. I've heard guns sounding like pop's but not explosives. Especially an explosive which would cut steel.
Another point is that each floor would have a breaker box which tied into some type of electrical main breaker room. The boxes above must have severed as the building collapsed. They had to regardless of how the building collased.

The office building I work in is small and has a large distribution panel like this. I can imagine what the towers must have had.
But that aside, simple shorts on main trunks could have caused the effect.
Now it is wires shorting creating the popping sounds and arcs? This is getting pathetic.
Were did you get your information on the color of shaped charges?
The reason you will not find a picture of indoor transformers exploding is breakers( For safety and damage control) and the type of transformer. The dangerous oil transformers that commonly explode are outdoors (on poles or surrounded by fence).
Do you have another reasonable explanation for the flashes ?

You may not find arcs in a photo/video because someone has to be ready for them. Just as with this above powerline which arced and went out 50 seconds after. This guy just happen to have his camera ready. An abnormal amount of time for a electrical arc for the same reasons you mentioned. But if you think a breaker will stop an arc from flashing I invite you to test this theory. *AT YOUR OWN RISK* Just get a wire peel the ends and stick it in a socket. It will flash before the breaker trips. Keep a fire extinguisher handy.
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
Do you have any videos of explosives which cut steel and flash orange first then red?
"and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building"
You can see from the transformer video electrical shorts are colored. The word "POPPING" isn't associated with explosives. I've heard guns sounding like pop's but not explosives. Especially an explosive which would cut steel.
Another point is that each floor would have a breaker box which tied into some type of electrical main breaker room. The boxes above must have severed as the building collapsed. They had to regardless of how the building collased.
The office building I work in is small and has a large distribution panel like this. I can imagine what the towers must have had.
But that aside, simple shorts on main trunks could have caused the effect.
Now it is wires shorting creating the popping sounds and arcs? This is getting pathetic.
Were did you get your information on the color of shaped charges?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 31 2006, 02:33 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 31 2006, 10:52 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 31 2006, 11:43 AM)
Common Sense, have you found any pictures of indoor dry transformers exploding or even arcing from within the heavy steel enclosure (I think you previously referred to it as a vault)?
The reason you will not find a picture of indoor transformers exploding is breakers( For safety and damage control) and the type of transformer. The dangerous oil transformers that commonly explode are outdoors (on poles or surrounded by fence).
Do you have another reasonable explanation for the flashes ?

You may not find arcs in a photo/video because someone has to be ready for them. Just as with this above powerline which arced and went out 50 seconds after. This guy just happen to have his camera ready. An abnormal amount of time for a electrical arc for the same reasons you mentioned. But if you think a breaker will stop an arc from flashing I invite you to test this theory. *AT YOUR OWN RISK* Just get a wire peel the ends and stick it in a socket. It will flash before the breaker trips. Keep a fire extinguisher handy.
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
Do you have any videos of explosives which cut steel and flash orange first then red?
"and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building"
You can see from the transformer video electrical shorts are colored. The word "POPPING" isn't associated with explosives. I've heard guns sounding like pop's but not explosives. Especially an explosive which would cut steel.
Another point is that each floor would have a breaker box which tied into some type of electrical main breaker room. The boxes above must have severed as the building collapsed. They had to regardless of how the building collased.

The office building I work in is small and has a large distribution panel like this. I can imagine what the towers must have had.
But that aside, simple shorts on main trunks could have caused the effect.
Now it is wires shorting creating the popping sounds and arcs? This is getting pathetic.
Were did you get your information on the color of shaped charges?
This is the kind of insults the conspiracy theorest do that I'm talking about. This moron gets frustrated because I'm giving him more than one possibility and he begins to insult because he can't prove me wrong.
NO, NOW IT ISN'T WIRES SHORTING CREATING POPPING SOUNDS. NOW IT'S THE *POSSIBILITY* OF MORE THEN JUST TRANSFORMERS. NOW IT MIGHT BE:
1) TRANSFORMERS
2) ELECTRICAL POWERLINES
3) ELECRICAL DISTRUBUTION PANELS
4) ANYTHING ELECTRICAL
You still haven't demonstrated which explosive gives off orange then red flashes. You NEED this if you're going to blame the flashes on explosives...
"The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."
To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.
"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.
Current standard tenant power capacity is 6W up to 10W per usable square foot depending on location. The World Trade Center's electricity supply is segmented for greater reliability and safety. Eight dedicated 13,800-V feeders divide into 23 building substations. On-floor electrical distribution is routed via at least two electrical closets per floor, each with separate high- and low-voltage bus ducts for tenant-dedicated use.
http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric...ity_2/index.htm
You're a fu<king moron who can only think one dimensionally. Don't ask for other possibilities if your going to insult people when they give you them.
You just don't want to look for videos of orange then red flashes before explosives go off. You're as see through as the empty towers. Stop insulting to divert attention away from your vacuous arguments and start showing some evidence FOR the orange and red flashes. I already did...
The reason you will not find a picture of indoor transformers exploding is breakers( For safety and damage control) and the type of transformer. The dangerous oil transformers that commonly explode are outdoors (on poles or surrounded by fence).
Do you have another reasonable explanation for the flashes ?

You may not find arcs in a photo/video because someone has to be ready for them. Just as with this above powerline which arced and went out 50 seconds after. This guy just happen to have his camera ready. An abnormal amount of time for a electrical arc for the same reasons you mentioned. But if you think a breaker will stop an arc from flashing I invite you to test this theory. *AT YOUR OWN RISK* Just get a wire peel the ends and stick it in a socket. It will flash before the breaker trips. Keep a fire extinguisher handy.
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*AT YOUR OWN RISK*
Do you have any videos of explosives which cut steel and flash orange first then red?
"and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building"
You can see from the transformer video electrical shorts are colored. The word "POPPING" isn't associated with explosives. I've heard guns sounding like pop's but not explosives. Especially an explosive which would cut steel.
Another point is that each floor would have a breaker box which tied into some type of electrical main breaker room. The boxes above must have severed as the building collapsed. They had to regardless of how the building collased.
The office building I work in is small and has a large distribution panel like this. I can imagine what the towers must have had.
But that aside, simple shorts on main trunks could have caused the effect.
Now it is wires shorting creating the popping sounds and arcs? This is getting pathetic.
Were did you get your information on the color of shaped charges?
This is the kind of insults the conspiracy theorest do that I'm talking about. This moron gets frustrated because I'm giving him more than one possibility and he begins to insult because he can't prove me wrong.
NO, NOW IT ISN'T WIRES SHORTING CREATING POPPING SOUNDS. NOW IT'S THE *POSSIBILITY* OF MORE THEN JUST TRANSFORMERS. NOW IT MIGHT BE:
1) TRANSFORMERS
2) ELECTRICAL POWERLINES
3) ELECRICAL DISTRUBUTION PANELS
4) ANYTHING ELECTRICAL
You still haven't demonstrated which explosive gives off orange then red flashes. You NEED this if you're going to blame the flashes on explosives...
"The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."
To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.
"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.
Current standard tenant power capacity is 6W up to 10W per usable square foot depending on location. The World Trade Center's electricity supply is segmented for greater reliability and safety. Eight dedicated 13,800-V feeders divide into 23 building substations. On-floor electrical distribution is routed via at least two electrical closets per floor, each with separate high- and low-voltage bus ducts for tenant-dedicated use.
http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric...ity_2/index.htm
You're a fu<king moron who can only think one dimensionally. Don't ask for other possibilities if your going to insult people when they give you them.
You just don't want to look for videos of orange then red flashes before explosives go off. You're as see through as the empty towers. Stop insulting to divert attention away from your vacuous arguments and start showing some evidence FOR the orange and red flashes. I already did...
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 30 2006, 06:50 PM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 30 2006, 06:06 PM)
And now that I have your attention you said that the supporters of the "OCT" haven't proven that asymmetrically damaged buildings can collapse symmetrically or that 1,2 & 7 WTC could have fallen as fast as they did. But your camp hasn't provided any evidence that they can't, photos of buildings tipped over by earthquakes don't help your case. Since no high-rise was ever hit by a jetliner the way the Twin Towers were and few buildings suffered as much damage from falling debris as 7 was it not like there are precedents for comparison. You also seem to misunderstand how things can be proved. The collapses fit computer and theoretical models. The Theory of Evolution can't be proven does that make creationism legitimate? Before the first a-bomb test the scientist of the Manhattan Project couldn't prove it would work but they were very certain that it would.
So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically?
I do not know what computer models you are suggesting the collapses fit...
I was suggesting these models and simulations. Lou and Rove's shill, do you guys prefer your crow hot or cold?
So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically?
.jpg)
The proof is here but you keep dismissing it, insisting the fall times are possible in a gravity driven 'pancake' hypothosis doesn't make it true. You continue to dismiss the behavoir of the structure during collapse and point us to non existant computer models.
Why are you here?
That stung, eh Len? Don't worry you'll get used to it. Walk it off. I didn't expect you to lay down like you did though, c'mon buddy earn your keep. Are you just going to ignore the photo?
Wow he is able to cut and paste, he must be a genius!
[QUOTE]YID Well considering she cites the erroneous time of 6.6 seconds for the collapse of #7 nothing she states can be taken as fact.
YID, are you two a team now. Nice. I'm excited for you two. Matching collars, no doubt. Ready for another fat eye? Address the photo you asked for.
R's s., You ain't nearly as clever as you think you are!
The reference to the computer model is linked above, on the same page of the same article it explains why the top of 2 WTC didn't fall over. It is also explained in the B & Z paper.
What exactly do you think the photo proves any way? Do you think it is evidence of CD? If so how?
I was suggesting these models and simulations
This reference is rather vague. Is there something more concrete which can be properly evaluated?
This computer simulation says that the towers did not fall at free fall speeds:
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

watch this clip frame by frame. you will see a lot of freefalling debris overtaken by the bombs sequence. you can also see obvious 'squibs'.....abc broadcast
the towers were blown. period. there is simply no way that the inside of the building can fall faster than freefalling objects on the outside, and yet, that is what is evidenced in this video.
of course, if you ride in a murderer car, you will state that there is 'no evidence' of bombs.
i would say that argument has blown up in your face, and you're still in shock.

watch this clip frame by frame. you will see a lot of freefalling debris overtaken by the bombs sequence. you can also see obvious 'squibs'.....abc broadcast
the towers were blown. period. there is simply no way that the inside of the building can fall faster than freefalling objects on the outside, and yet, that is what is evidenced in this video.
of course, if you ride in a murderer car, you will state that there is 'no evidence' of bombs.
i would say that argument has blown up in your face, and you're still in shock.
That's the light wieght aluminum. You can predict the aluminum blowing off with the debris coming out of the windows. A long piece of light aluminum can float down much, much slower than free fall. Show me a column tree that gets overtaken by the debris cloud...
Reply without insult. I DARE you...

You just don't want to look for videos of orange then red flashes before explosives go off. You're as see through as the empty towers. Stop insulting to divert attention away from your vacuous arguments and start showing some evidence FOR the orange and red flashes. I already did...
This Chart shows what could be added to the explosives to get red and orange flashes. I have not found information on the colors of “off the shelf “cutting charges. I was asking for a reasonable explanation and that is why I became frustrated. If you think a one time arc in a transformer case, distribution panel or Wire in a wall or steel conduit would produce what witnesses describe, it certainly would not surprise me.
Commercial fireworks use only a small number of compounds to emit the colors of the spectrum. The following table contains the standard sources of colors in most commercial fireworks.
Coloration of Fireworks According to Emitting Materials
Color Emitters: Used:
Yellow Sodium D-Line atomic emission
Orange CaCl
Red SrCl or SrOH
Green BaCl
Blue CuCl
http://explosion-models.net/
This is the color of a thermobaric bomb:

Much closer to the colors then your example of the transformer arc.
So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically?
I do not know what computer models you are suggesting the collapses fit...
I was suggesting these models and simulations. Lou and Rove's shill, do you guys prefer your crow hot or cold?
QUOTE
Via two simple models, Kausel was able to determine that the fall of the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the buildings’ design loads by at least an order of magnitude. He also performed some computer simulations that indicate the building material fell almost unrestricted at nearly the speed of free-falling objects. "The towers' resistive systems played no role. Otherwise the elapsed time of the fall would have been extended," he noted.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...umber=5&catID=4
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...umber=5&catID=4
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 31 2006, 10:06 AM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 30 2006, 08:17 PM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 30 2006, 06:06 PM)
So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically?
.jpg)
The proof is here but you keep dismissing it, insisting the fall times are possible in a gravity driven 'pancake' hypothosis doesn't make it true. You continue to dismiss the behavoir of the structure during collapse and point us to non existant computer models.
Why are you here?
That stung, eh Len? Don't worry you'll get used to it. Walk it off. I didn't expect you to lay down like you did though, c'mon buddy earn your keep. Are you just going to ignore the photo?
Wow he is able to cut and paste, he must be a genius!
[QUOTE]YID Well considering she cites the erroneous time of 6.6 seconds for the collapse of #7 nothing she states can be taken as fact.
YID, are you two a team now. Nice. I'm excited for you two. Matching collars, no doubt. Ready for another fat eye? Address the photo you asked for.
R's s., You ain't nearly as clever as you think you are!
The reference to the computer model is linked above, on the same page of the same article it explains why the top of 2 WTC didn't fall over. It is also explained in the B & Z paper.
What exactly do you think the photo proves any way? Do you think it is evidence of CD? If so how?
You may want to go over the post again. I am saying, after the penthouse fell, which was seconds before total collapse, the 20 story hole would most likely have gotten wider/taller/both, take your pick. This is not unreasonable. "The penthouse went somewhere." Where did it go? Why wouldn't the debris find the back of the building with less resistance? It was just hit by another building. It already had a 20 story hole.
From the photos of the debris pile, a large section of the north face laid on the pile like it DID tilt back.

Note that the face is pointing toward where the penthouse would have been. You would predict this if the penthouse pulled the building down with it.
Of course I open myself up to criticism if I suspect something without evidence but that's just a hunch I have. I suspect the back of the building blew out with the penthouse collapse, not before. Event 1) tower hits building and creates the 20 story hole. Event 2) the penthouse falls and widens the hole. There is nothing conflicting here.
QUOTE
You would have to wonder, if there was this huge hole on one side of the building that offered the least resistance, why this did not cause the building to tilt toward that lower resistance, as the top of the south tower did.
From the photos of the debris pile, a large section of the north face laid on the pile like it DID tilt back.
Note that the face is pointing toward where the penthouse would have been. You would predict this if the penthouse pulled the building down with it.
Of course I open myself up to criticism if I suspect something without evidence but that's just a hunch I have. I suspect the back of the building blew out with the penthouse collapse, not before. Event 1) tower hits building and creates the 20 story hole. Event 2) the penthouse falls and widens the hole. There is nothing conflicting here.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 31 2006, 08:07 PM)
[QUOTE=Rove's shill,Mar 31 2006, 10:06 AM] [QUOTE=Rove's shill,Mar 30 2006, 08:17 PM][QUOTE=lenbrazil,Mar 30 2006, 06:06 PM]
So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically? [/QUOTE]
.jpg)
The proof is here but you keep dismissing it, insisting the fall times are possible in a gravity driven 'pancake' hypothosis doesn't make it true. You continue to dismiss the behavoir of the structure during collapse and point us to non existant computer models.
Why are you here?[/QUOTE]
That stung, eh Len? Don't worry you'll get used to it. Walk it off. I didn't expect you to lay down like you did though, c'mon buddy earn your keep. Are you just going to ignore the photo?
Wow he is able to cut and paste, he must be a genius!
[QUOTE]YID Well considering she cites the erroneous time of 6.6 seconds for the collapse of #7 nothing she states can be taken as fact.
YID, are you two a team now. Nice. I'm excited for you two. Matching collars, no doubt. Ready for another fat eye? Address the photo you asked for. [/QUOTE]
R's s., You ain't nearly as clever as you think you are!
The reference to the computer model is linked above, on the same page of the same article it explains why the top of 2 WTC didn't fall over. It is also explained in the B & Z paper.
What exactly do you think the photo proves any way? Do you think it is evidence of CD? If so how?
From the link -
-"I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements—floor trusses and columns—so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse,"
I believe that to be utter bullshit - good enough? Kevin Ryan agrees.
From the same page -
"Via two simple models, Kausel was able to determine that the fall of the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the buildings’ design loads by at least an order of magnitude. He also performed some computer simulations that indicate the building material fell almost unrestricted at nearly the speed of free-falling objects. "The towers' resistive systems played no role. Otherwise the elapsed time of the fall would have been extended," he noted. As it was, the debris took about nine seconds to reach the ground from the top."
In other words - because it fell "at nearly the speed of free-falling objects" there was no resistance. Clever boy, he manages to create two simple models that determine what exactly? Why - "MUST HAVE CAUSED DYNAMIC FORCES"???
There is no must unless all other explanations have been ruled out - eg controlled demolition.
From the link -
"A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself."
The building DID tip over.
That paper is drivel
So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically? [/QUOTE]
.jpg)
The proof is here but you keep dismissing it, insisting the fall times are possible in a gravity driven 'pancake' hypothosis doesn't make it true. You continue to dismiss the behavoir of the structure during collapse and point us to non existant computer models.
Why are you here?[/QUOTE]
That stung, eh Len? Don't worry you'll get used to it. Walk it off. I didn't expect you to lay down like you did though, c'mon buddy earn your keep. Are you just going to ignore the photo?
Wow he is able to cut and paste, he must be a genius!
[QUOTE]YID Well considering she cites the erroneous time of 6.6 seconds for the collapse of #7 nothing she states can be taken as fact.
YID, are you two a team now. Nice. I'm excited for you two. Matching collars, no doubt. Ready for another fat eye? Address the photo you asked for. [/QUOTE]
R's s., You ain't nearly as clever as you think you are!
The reference to the computer model is linked above, on the same page of the same article it explains why the top of 2 WTC didn't fall over. It is also explained in the B & Z paper.
What exactly do you think the photo proves any way? Do you think it is evidence of CD? If so how?
From the link -
-"I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements—floor trusses and columns—so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse,"
I believe that to be utter bullshit - good enough? Kevin Ryan agrees.
From the same page -
"Via two simple models, Kausel was able to determine that the fall of the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the buildings’ design loads by at least an order of magnitude. He also performed some computer simulations that indicate the building material fell almost unrestricted at nearly the speed of free-falling objects. "The towers' resistive systems played no role. Otherwise the elapsed time of the fall would have been extended," he noted. As it was, the debris took about nine seconds to reach the ground from the top."
In other words - because it fell "at nearly the speed of free-falling objects" there was no resistance. Clever boy, he manages to create two simple models that determine what exactly? Why - "MUST HAVE CAUSED DYNAMIC FORCES"???
There is no must unless all other explanations have been ruled out - eg controlled demolition.
From the link -
"A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself."
The building DID tip over.
That paper is drivel
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 31 2006, 08:00 PM)
I was suggesting these models and simulations
QUOTE
Via two simple models, Kausel was able to determine that the fall of the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the buildings’ design loads by at least an order of magnitude. He also performed some computer simulations that indicate the building material fell almost unrestricted at nearly the speed of free-falling objects. "The towers' resistive systems played no role. Otherwise the elapsed time of the fall would have been extended," he noted.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...umber=5&catID=4
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...umber=5&catID=4
This reference is rather vague. Is there something more concrete which can be properly evaluated?
This computer simulation says that the towers did not fall at free fall speeds:
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm
Common sense, you may have posted this somewhere before, but let me ask again, where can I find the evidence on the location and dimensions of the hole? All I have gathered thus far is that it was 16-20 stories vertically. How wide was it? How deep was it? What portion of the south face did it occupy?
From the collapse model len cites:
This is an absurd suggestion. It took no energy to break the structure up?
From the collapse model len cites:
QUOTE
"The towers' resistive systems played no role.
This is an absurd suggestion. It took no energy to break the structure up?
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 31 2006, 08:07 PM)
[QUOTE=Rove's shill,Mar 31 2006, 10:06 AM] [QUOTE=Rove's shill,Mar 30 2006, 08:17 PM][QUOTE=lenbrazil,Mar 30 2006, 06:06 PM]
So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically? [/QUOTE]
.jpg)
The proof is here but you keep dismissing it, insisting the fall times are possible in a gravity driven 'pancake' hypothosis doesn't make it true. You continue to dismiss the behavoir of the structure during collapse and point us to non existant computer models.
Why are you here?[/QUOTE]
That stung, eh Len? Don't worry you'll get used to it. Walk it off. I didn't expect you to lay down like you did though, c'mon buddy earn your keep. Are you just going to ignore the photo?
Wow he is able to cut and paste, he must be a genius!
[QUOTE]YID Well considering she cites the erroneous time of 6.6 seconds for the collapse of #7 nothing she states can be taken as fact.
YID, are you two a team now. Nice. I'm excited for you two. Matching collars, no doubt. Ready for another fat eye? Address the photo you asked for. [/QUOTE]
R's s., You ain't nearly as clever as you think you are!
The reference to the computer model is linked above, on the same page of the same article it explains why the top of 2 WTC didn't fall over. It is also explained in the B & Z paper.
What exactly do you think the photo proves any way? Do you think it is evidence of CD? If so how?
Oh, but I am. This photo answered both of your questions. You will never be able to produce a model, computer or physical, supporting a gravity driven pancake hypothesis that matches the video evidence of the behavior of the structure/mass during during collapse. Period. So please quit stating there is one. This is called lying and I will call you on it every time.
Look at the photo Len, once an object is in motion, it tends to stay in motion. Agree?
So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically? [/QUOTE]
.jpg)
The proof is here but you keep dismissing it, insisting the fall times are possible in a gravity driven 'pancake' hypothosis doesn't make it true. You continue to dismiss the behavoir of the structure during collapse and point us to non existant computer models.
Why are you here?[/QUOTE]
That stung, eh Len? Don't worry you'll get used to it. Walk it off. I didn't expect you to lay down like you did though, c'mon buddy earn your keep. Are you just going to ignore the photo?
Wow he is able to cut and paste, he must be a genius!
[QUOTE]YID Well considering she cites the erroneous time of 6.6 seconds for the collapse of #7 nothing she states can be taken as fact.
YID, are you two a team now. Nice. I'm excited for you two. Matching collars, no doubt. Ready for another fat eye? Address the photo you asked for. [/QUOTE]
R's s., You ain't nearly as clever as you think you are!
The reference to the computer model is linked above, on the same page of the same article it explains why the top of 2 WTC didn't fall over. It is also explained in the B & Z paper.
What exactly do you think the photo proves any way? Do you think it is evidence of CD? If so how?
Oh, but I am. This photo answered both of your questions. You will never be able to produce a model, computer or physical, supporting a gravity driven pancake hypothesis that matches the video evidence of the behavior of the structure/mass during during collapse. Period. So please quit stating there is one. This is called lying and I will call you on it every time.
Look at the photo Len, once an object is in motion, it tends to stay in motion. Agree?

watch this clip frame by frame. you will see a lot of freefalling debris overtaken by the bombs sequence. you can also see obvious 'squibs'.....abc broadcast
the towers were blown. period. there is simply no way that the inside of the building can fall faster than freefalling objects on the outside, and yet, that is what is evidenced in this video.
of course, if you ride in a murderer car, you will state that there is 'no evidence' of bombs.
i would say that argument has blown up in your face, and you're still in shock.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 04:12 PM)
Common sense, you may have posted this somewhere before, but let me ask again, where can I find the evidence on the location and dimensions of the hole? All I have gathered thus far is that it was 16-20 stories vertically. How wide was it? How deep was it? What portion of the south face did it occupy?
From the collapse model len cites:
This is an absurd suggestion. It took no energy to break the structure up?
I did give you the WTC7 pull page with the fireman's quotes and a link to the NIST graph which shows a similar hole but here is goes again...
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.
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.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html



http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.htm
From the collapse model len cites:
QUOTE
"The towers' resistive systems played no role.
This is an absurd suggestion. It took no energy to break the structure up?
I did give you the WTC7 pull page with the fireman's quotes and a link to the NIST graph which shows a similar hole but here is goes again...
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.
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.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html



http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.htm
Rove's shill, what photo did I call for and why?
Certainly not the one you posted above.
I did ask for video that shows anything going upwards. I was very specific in asking for video and not stills and gave my reasons for that.
Regardless, that still also does not show anything going upwards.
Did I ask for something else? Refresh my memory.
Certainly not the one you posted above.
I did ask for video that shows anything going upwards. I was very specific in asking for video and not stills and gave my reasons for that.
Regardless, that still also does not show anything going upwards.
Did I ask for something else? Refresh my memory.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 31 2006, 05:05 PM)

watch this clip frame by frame. you will see a lot of freefalling debris overtaken by the bombs sequence. you can also see obvious 'squibs'.....abc broadcast
the towers were blown. period. there is simply no way that the inside of the building can fall faster than freefalling objects on the outside, and yet, that is what is evidenced in this video.
of course, if you ride in a murderer car, you will state that there is 'no evidence' of bombs.
i would say that argument has blown up in your face, and you're still in shock.
That's the light wieght aluminum. You can predict the aluminum blowing off with the debris coming out of the windows. A long piece of light aluminum can float down much, much slower than free fall. Show me a column tree that gets overtaken by the debris cloud...
Reply without insult. I DARE you...
In the late 1960's, Alcoa was approached to help design a new alloy for the World Trade Center. Alcoa created a unique aluminum "skin" and novel cladding system for the architects. T, a signature lightweight alloy developed by Alcoa for the World Trade Center, is credited with giving many tall buildings around the world their shiny, graceful appearance. Aluminum was used extensively in the construction, including the covering of the trademark Gothic forks around the base of the buildings.
http://www.aluminum.org/Template.cfm?Secti...&ContentID=5013
http://www.aluminum.org/Template.cfm?Secti...&ContentID=5013
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 31 2006, 11:59 AM)

You just don't want to look for videos of orange then red flashes before explosives go off. You're as see through as the empty towers. Stop insulting to divert attention away from your vacuous arguments and start showing some evidence FOR the orange and red flashes. I already did...
This Chart shows what could be added to the explosives to get red and orange flashes. I have not found information on the colors of “off the shelf “cutting charges. I was asking for a reasonable explanation and that is why I became frustrated. If you think a one time arc in a transformer case, distribution panel or Wire in a wall or steel conduit would produce what witnesses describe, it certainly would not surprise me.
Commercial fireworks use only a small number of compounds to emit the colors of the spectrum. The following table contains the standard sources of colors in most commercial fireworks.
Coloration of Fireworks According to Emitting Materials
Color Emitters: Used:
Yellow Sodium D-Line atomic emission
Orange CaCl
Red SrCl or SrOH
Green BaCl
Blue CuCl
http://explosion-models.net/
This is the color of a thermobaric bomb:

Much closer to the colors then your example of the transformer arc.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 31 2006, 10:14 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 04:12 PM)
Common sense, you may have posted this somewhere before, but let me ask again, where can I find the evidence on the location and dimensions of the hole? All I have gathered thus far is that it was 16-20 stories vertically. How wide was it? How deep was it? What portion of the south face did it occupy?
From the collapse model len cites:
This is an absurd suggestion. It took no energy to break the structure up?
I did give you the WTC7 pull page with the firemans quotes and a link to the NIST graph which shows a simular hole but here is goes again...
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.
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.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html



http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.htm
Okay, we've got a rough location of the hole now: "right in the middle".
Still nothing on width and depth though, which is crucial information. How did NIST estimate the depth of the hole? I notice they say their delineation is "possible" only, so how do we KNOW for certain it reached any core columns?
So far the evidence you've provided on the dimensions of this hole are pretty vague.
If we assume that the hole was indeed right in the middle, and take the average of 47/3 and 20 to give a height of ~ 18 stories, that means the hole began roughly 15 floors below the roof. The debris would have to fall several more floors before penetrating anywhere close to the core. I still contend that there was not any damage close enough to the penthouse to cause it to fall. I don't claim to be an expert on the design of WTC7, but if you remove part of a column on a lower floor, surely the trusses linking it to all the floors above will hold it in place? Was the penthouse really too heavy for 20+ intact floors holding the columns below it in place?
Occams razor would suggest that the columns were severed along their entire lengths, not just at one location, in order for the Penthouse to overload them.

watch this clip frame by frame. you will see a lot of freefalling debris overtaken by the bombs sequence. you can also see obvious 'squibs'.....abc broadcast
the towers were blown. period. there is simply no way that the inside of the building can fall faster than freefalling objects on the outside, and yet, that is what is evidenced in this video.
of course, if you ride in a murderer car, you will state that there is 'no evidence' of bombs.
i would say that argument has blown up in your face, and you're still in shock.
That's the light wieght aluminum. You can predict the aluminum blowing off with the debris coming out of the windows. A long piece of light aluminum can float down much, much slower than free fall. How show me a column tree that gets overtaken by the debris cloud...
Reply without insult. I DARE you...
i don't like insulting people. i really don't.
pretty amazing of you to identify all the bits and pieces in that debris as aluminum. aluminum sure can fall just as fast as everything else falling. i'm pretty sure i see a big steel beam or two falling just ahead of the debris i circled.
the video shows the truth. the picture shows you what to look for. if i did a frame by frame analysis(as i'm sure someone somewhere will, maybe me), it would clearly prove demolition, just as this photo proves it, once framed in the proper context of rates and trajectories which are measurable in the video.
peace, dude.
much love.

Much closer to the colors then your example of the transformer arc.
That's happening within how many frames per second? This is why we need the video. It would have to be a flash which shows a change in color slow enough to be seen by the naked eye and not slowed down by video/photo equipment. It also shows a white flash before the orange. First orange, then red.
Also, does that explosion sound like a "pop"?

watch this clip frame by frame. you will see a lot of freefalling debris overtaken by the bombs sequence. you can also see obvious 'squibs'.....abc broadcast
the towers were blown. period. there is simply no way that the inside of the building can fall faster than freefalling objects on the outside, and yet, that is what is evidenced in this video.
of course, if you ride in a murderer car, you will state that there is 'no evidence' of bombs.
i would say that argument has blown up in your face, and you're still in shock.
I have watched that video at least a dozen times now newton and I see that chunk get expelled from the level of collapse and then disappear from the picture never having been swallowed up by or caught by the progression of the collapse. It is always ahead of the collapse once it leaves the building.
This is to be expected since it is free falling while the building's collapse isn't progressing a slower rate.
The staccato progression of the collapse illustrates nicely the pancaking effect. Also shows a slight assymetry to the collapse. There is no reason to expect perfect symetry in this though so that's no biggee. Unless of course it was CD in which case one might expect perfect symetry.
Too bad there is no sound, I would think it would be a bambambambam matching the failure of each floor. This is only visible in the first few seconds though since the camera does not pull out fast enough to show the collapsing levels all the way down. No matter since as it sped up this would become less and less noticable.
I also see nothing get expelled upward. Everything that leaves the building goes horizontally out the building. The dust trail behind expelled debris gets drawn down by the air following the falling mass making it look like an arcing trajectory.
At about 20 % of the way into this clip you can also see that a large mass, likely part of the top section, fall away to the left. It is completely obscured by the dust but the way it moves suggests a large solid mass. I think it could be one of those perimeter columns that ended up a relatively long way from the towers.
From the collapse model len cites:
QUOTE
"The towers' resistive systems played no role.
This is an absurd suggestion. It took no energy to break the structure up?
I did give you the WTC7 pull page with the firemans quotes and a link to the NIST graph which shows a simular hole but here is goes again...
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.
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.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html



http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.htm
Okay, we've got a rough location of the hole now: "right in the middle".
Still nothing on width and depth though, which is crucial information. How did NIST estimate the depth of the hole? I notice they say their delineation is "possible" only, so how do we KNOW for certain it reached any core columns?
So far the evidence you've provided on the dimensions of this hole are pretty vague.
If we assume that the hole was indeed right in the middle, and take the average of 47/3 and 20 to give a height of ~ 18 stories, that means the hole began roughly 15 floors below the roof. The debris would have to fall several more floors before penetrating anywhere close to the core. I still contend that there was not any damage close enough to the penthouse to cause it to fall. I don't claim to be an expert on the design of WTC7, but if you remove part of a column on a lower floor, surely the trusses linking it to all the floors above will hold it in place? Was the penthouse really too heavy for 20+ intact floors holding the columns below it in place?
Occams razor would suggest that the columns were severed along their entire lengths, not just at one location, in order for the Penthouse to overload them.
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 31 2006, 10:21 PM)
Rove's shill, what photo did I call for and why?
Certainly not the one you posted above.
I did ask for video that shows anything going upwards. I was very specific in asking for video and not stills and gave my reasons for that.
Regardless, that still also does not show anything going upwards.
Did I ask for something else? Refresh my memory.
You are right. i presumed you guilty by association. You did not ask for evidence of the collapses being slower or assymetrical collapse. i'm sorry.
Certainly not the one you posted above.
I did ask for video that shows anything going upwards. I was very specific in asking for video and not stills and gave my reasons for that.
Regardless, that still also does not show anything going upwards.
Did I ask for something else? Refresh my memory.
You are right. i presumed you guilty by association. You did not ask for evidence of the collapses being slower or assymetrical collapse. i'm sorry.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 31 2006, 10:28 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 31 2006, 05:05 PM)

watch this clip frame by frame. you will see a lot of freefalling debris overtaken by the bombs sequence. you can also see obvious 'squibs'.....abc broadcast
the towers were blown. period. there is simply no way that the inside of the building can fall faster than freefalling objects on the outside, and yet, that is what is evidenced in this video.
of course, if you ride in a murderer car, you will state that there is 'no evidence' of bombs.
i would say that argument has blown up in your face, and you're still in shock.
That's the light wieght aluminum. You can predict the aluminum blowing off with the debris coming out of the windows. A long piece of light aluminum can float down much, much slower than free fall. How show me a column tree that gets overtaken by the debris cloud...
Reply without insult. I DARE you...
i don't like insulting people. i really don't.
pretty amazing of you to identify all the bits and pieces in that debris as aluminum. aluminum sure can fall just as fast as everything else falling. i'm pretty sure i see a big steel beam or two falling just ahead of the debris i circled.
the video shows the truth. the picture shows you what to look for. if i did a frame by frame analysis(as i'm sure someone somewhere will, maybe me), it would clearly prove demolition, just as this photo proves it, once framed in the proper context of rates and trajectories which are measurable in the video.
peace, dude.
much love.
With regards to this photo:

Anyone know what is causing the reflection circled in red?

Anyone know what is causing the reflection circled in red?
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 10:55 PM)
With regards to this photo:

Anyone know what is causing the reflection circled in red?
Weird, probably a double reflection from windows facing those ones.

Anyone know what is causing the reflection circled in red?
Weird, probably a double reflection from windows facing those ones.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 31 2006, 05:46 PM)

Much closer to the colors then your example of the transformer arc.
That's happening within how many frames per second? This is why we need the video. It would have to be a flash which shows a change in color slow enough to be seen by the naked eye and not slowed down by video/photo equipment. It also shows a white flash before the orange. First orange, then red.
Also, does that explosion sound like a "pop"?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 31 2006, 10:05 PM)

watch this clip frame by frame. you will see a lot of freefalling debris overtaken by the bombs sequence. you can also see obvious 'squibs'.....abc broadcast
the towers were blown. period. there is simply no way that the inside of the building can fall faster than freefalling objects on the outside, and yet, that is what is evidenced in this video.
of course, if you ride in a murderer car, you will state that there is 'no evidence' of bombs.
i would say that argument has blown up in your face, and you're still in shock.
I have watched that video at least a dozen times now newton and I see that chunk get expelled from the level of collapse and then disappear from the picture never having been swallowed up by or caught by the progression of the collapse. It is always ahead of the collapse once it leaves the building.
This is to be expected since it is free falling while the building's collapse isn't progressing a slower rate.
The staccato progression of the collapse illustrates nicely the pancaking effect. Also shows a slight assymetry to the collapse. There is no reason to expect perfect symetry in this though so that's no biggee. Unless of course it was CD in which case one might expect perfect symetry.
Too bad there is no sound, I would think it would be a bambambambam matching the failure of each floor. This is only visible in the first few seconds though since the camera does not pull out fast enough to show the collapsing levels all the way down. No matter since as it sped up this would become less and less noticable.
I also see nothing get expelled upward. Everything that leaves the building goes horizontally out the building. The dust trail behind expelled debris gets drawn down by the air following the falling mass making it look like an arcing trajectory.
At about 20 % of the way into this clip you can also see that a large mass, likely part of the top section, fall away to the left. It is completely obscured by the dust but the way it moves suggests a large solid mass. I think it could be one of those perimeter columns that ended up a relatively long way from the towers.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 31 2006, 11:05 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 10:55 PM)
With regards to this photo:

Anyone know what is causing the reflection circled in red?
Weird, probably a double reflection from windows facing those ones.
yeah. a double reflection, i agree.

Anyone know what is causing the reflection circled in red?
Weird, probably a double reflection from windows facing those ones.
yeah. a double reflection, i agree.
QUOTE (brian+Mar 31 2006, 07:11 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 31 2006, 06:21 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 31 2006, 03:57 PM)
VIVA CHAVEZ
As usual Alex Jones uses hyperbole but it may be promising - time will tell.
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
-Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez this week embarked on a groundbreaking trip to Caracas Venezuela in which they met with with the President of the Assembly and will soon meet with Venezuelan President himself Hugo Chavez in anticipation of an official Venezuelan government investigation into 9/11. ---
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...vestigation.htm
As frater has said more than once, physics will not settle this in a meaningful way. The cumulative evidence that September 11 was an inside job is literally overwhelming, so much so that any objective jury would need less than ten minutes to deliberate and reach the already established conclusion that -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
If you believe that, then post political, non-science subjects elsewhere. They are not science, physics or engineering related. Please note the name of the forum, the sub-forum and this thread.
YID, I, like everyone else, will decide what I consider relevant and unless I am stopped from posting you will just have to live with it. You and others would like to keep up this endless obfuscation whilst I see from many posts that not all are up to the level required to enter the scientific debate but are interested in the subject.
The controlled demolition of the towers did not happen in a vacumn, the surrounding issues make it all the easier for people to see that September 11 was indeed an inside job.
No, as a matter of fact, the surrounding issues make it quite clear that September 11 was an inside job and they make it easier for people to see that you and your ilk are only concerned in muddying the waters.
Anyway, as far as I and a great many are concerned the first post on this thread settles the issue and your endless repetition will not change the fact that we are now in the position where we can say -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
-with no fear of meaningful contradiction.
Come to terms with it.
I hereby nominate Brian as thread moderator and therapist
Folks even using the word "collapse" need a hefty brain slap, just to limit dysfunction of obfuscation.
Collapse not symmetrical --- The collapse was not completely symmetrical. First the east penthouse and then the west penthouse. Once the interior beams connecting the exterior posts to the interior posts failed then naturally the exterior fell, bringing the curtain wall along with it. However the exterior beams still connected the exterior posts together, except perhaps along the 20 floor gash in the unobserved south side. So the exterior structure broke loose from the cantilever W on the lower floors and fell nearly straight down.
=
Before D theorists jump all over me, I point out that there is nothing in D theories which requires WTC 7 to fall in addition to WTC 1 & 2. There would be no way of knowing in advance that WTC 7 would be set on fire...
David, I would really be interested in a reference to a collapse that was more symmetrical then WTC7. I have looked at the CD web sites and have not seen a more perfect demolition then WTC7.
There you go using your brains again. Don't you know how unpatriotic that is? And you forgot, your not supposed to believe your lying eyes or your ears, but only the things your government tells you to believe.

As the Charlie Sheen story ends its second week and with cookie-cutter establishment hit pieces continuing to be churned out, the attack dogs are facing an intensifying backlash from a clear majority of educated American citizens who are sick and tired of the sneering elitism of the mainstream media.
Notice how it says EDUCATED AMERICANS!
That must mean that all the fairy tale magician in a cave believers are un-educated, which makes perfect sense. That would explain why the education system in this nation has taken such a serious down turn for the worse.
The more stupid the people, the less questions about the government 9/11 cover up, and as for another bonus, the less educated, the more volunteers for the war.
But hey, whatever it takes to get that oil pumping and higher prophets for the war machine.

Much closer to the colors then your example of the transformer arc.
That's happening within how many frames per second? This is why we need the video. It would have to be a flash which shows a change in color slow enough to be seen by the naked eye and not slowed down by video/photo equipment. It also shows a white flash before the orange. First orange, then red.
Also, does that explosion sound like a "pop"?
Cutting charges going off in a demolition:
.jpg)
.jpg)
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...irut_hilton.mpg
you can hear the popping in this video:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030221163235
Looks a lot closer to red and orange then the transformer arc below ( I am sure you can use the pictures to update your web site).

Is this correct, the penthouse was on the opposite side as the cantilevered floors and substation? I thought the massive fire that caused the collapse was supposed to be in the substation.

Much closer to the colors then your example of the transformer arc.
That's happening within how many frames per second? This is why we need the video. It would have to be a flash which shows a change in color slow enough to be seen by the naked eye and not slowed down by video/photo equipment. It also shows a white flash before the orange. First orange, then red.
Also, does that explosion sound like a "pop"?
Cutting charges going off in a demolition:
.jpg)
.jpg)
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030221163235
Looks a lot closer to red and orange then the transformer arc below ( I am sure you can use the pictures to update your web site).
That's a three phase powerline and not a transformer. The photos you posted are explosions and not "Flashes". You need an orange flash, then red in a low enough speed to be seen with the naked eye.
I'll stick with the fireman's quote for now. He thought it may have been electrical explosions. The fact is I posted how much high voltage was in the towers. I also found out there was an electrical substation on the 43'd floor.
http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
We have evidence there was enough electrical equipment to put on a nice show. You still don't have evidence explosives were in the building. I will admit you may have something with the thermite if you can show a thermite explosion which can blow a steel column in half that gives off an orange then red flash. One after the other. Not orange and red at the same time. From what I know about thermite it's not the best for cutting steel columns.
I also don't think someone will put color into explosives just to blow the building up.
I have a real problem with the ejecta not being part of the conversation. In all the thermite explosions I have seen they create lots of ejecta. This guy just talks about popping and flashing.
Then there is the problem with an explosion in the middle of the building which brings the top down. How does that work?
Have the Conspiracy sites undated their site with the possible electrical flashes? Tell them they can use the photo off my site. Considering they haven't changed the "Pull it" pages to include all the fireman's quotes saying building 7 was a lost cause, or they haven't pulled the fireman's "Two Lines" quote because it deceptively implies the 78th floor had light fire then they all had light fires. I think what I've done is more than fair. Can you point me to the sites that take this information into account?

Is this correct, the penthouse was on the opposite side as the cantilevered floors and substation? I thought the massive fire that caused the collapse was supposed to be in the substation.
Who told you that?
As usual Alex Jones uses hyperbole but it may be promising - time will tell.
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
-Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez this week embarked on a groundbreaking trip to Caracas Venezuela in which they met with with the President of the Assembly and will soon meet with Venezuelan President himself Hugo Chavez in anticipation of an official Venezuelan government investigation into 9/11. ---
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...vestigation.htm
As frater has said more than once, physics will not settle this in a meaningful way. The cumulative evidence that September 11 was an inside job is literally overwhelming, so much so that any objective jury would need less than ten minutes to deliberate and reach the already established conclusion that -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
QUOTE
As frater has said more than once, physics will not settle this in a meaningful way. The cumulative evidence that September 11 was an inside job is literally overwhelming, so much so that any objective jury would need less than ten minutes to deliberate and reach the already established conclusion that -
If you believe that, then post political, non-science subjects elsewhere. They are not science, physics or engineering related. Please note the name of the forum, the sub-forum and this thread.
YID, I, like everyone else, will decide what I consider relevant and unless I am stopped from posting you will just have to live with it. You and others would like to keep up this endless obfuscation whilst I see from many posts that not all are up to the level required to enter the scientific debate but are interested in the subject.
The controlled demolition of the towers did not happen in a vacumn, the surrounding issues make it all the easier for people to see that September 11 was indeed an inside job.
No, as a matter of fact, the surrounding issues make it quite clear that September 11 was an inside job and they make it easier for people to see that you and your ilk are only concerned in muddying the waters.
Anyway, as far as I and a great many are concerned the first post on this thread settles the issue and your endless repetition will not change the fact that we are now in the position where we can say -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
-with no fear of meaningful contradiction.
Come to terms with it.
I hereby nominate Brian as thread moderator and therapist
Folks even using the word "collapse" need a hefty brain slap, just to limit dysfunction of obfuscation.
WTC 7 collapse time estimate --- somewhere in the first 59 pages of this thread there was a link to the seismograph records for WTC 1, 2 & 7 events. The records for WTC 1 & 2 agree reasonably well with the otherwise estimated collapse times. Using the same criteria, by eyeball, for WTC 7 gives a collapse time of 10--20 seconds.
WTC 7 construction --- WTC 7 was not just a traditional "post and beam" design. On the lower floors the load was cantilevered onto the central portion and thus onto posts set through the ConEd generating station below ground. This cantilevering may have contributed to the building falling more or less straight down. The east penthouse took a few seconds to disappear into the interior followed by the west penthouse 5 seconds later, according to the FEMA report. Within 2 seconds more, total collapse of the curtain wall and associated structural steel commenced.
WTC 7 fireproofing --- Steel cannot itself be fireproofed. The steel structural members have to be covered with some material to retard the heat flow. In the case of WTC 7 this was some spray-on concrete based substance, which for horizontal members gave 2 hours of rated protection and for vertical members 3 hours of rated protection, these ratings assuming the source of the fire is typical for office building fires. Since the building was on fire for 6 hours and 52 minutes before collapse, the fires alone explain the collapse.
Collapse not symmetrical --- The collapse was not completely symmetrical. First the east penthouse and then the west penthouse. Once the interior beams connecting the exterior posts to the interior posts failed then naturally the exterior fell, bringing the curtain wall along with it. However the exterior beams still connected the exterior posts together, except perhaps along the 20 floor gash in the unobserved south side. So the exterior structure broke loose from the cantilever W on the lower floors and fell nearly straight down.
Nonetheless, the collapse of WTC 7 is sufficiently similar to the destruction of more traditional steel framed post and beam designs, many examples of which have been posted here recently, that what is observed in the visuals and read about the firemans' reports that the weight of the evidence favors the simple explanation: without water the put out the fires, the building finally overheated, the steel lost structural strength and it fell down in a way not inconsistent with previous steel framed building fire collapses.
Before D theorists jump all over me, I point out that there is nothing in D theories which requires WTC 7 to fall in addition to WTC 1 & 2. There would be no way of knowing in advance that WTC 7 would be set on fire...
WTC 7 construction --- WTC 7 was not just a traditional "post and beam" design. On the lower floors the load was cantilevered onto the central portion and thus onto posts set through the ConEd generating station below ground. This cantilevering may have contributed to the building falling more or less straight down. The east penthouse took a few seconds to disappear into the interior followed by the west penthouse 5 seconds later, according to the FEMA report. Within 2 seconds more, total collapse of the curtain wall and associated structural steel commenced.
WTC 7 fireproofing --- Steel cannot itself be fireproofed. The steel structural members have to be covered with some material to retard the heat flow. In the case of WTC 7 this was some spray-on concrete based substance, which for horizontal members gave 2 hours of rated protection and for vertical members 3 hours of rated protection, these ratings assuming the source of the fire is typical for office building fires. Since the building was on fire for 6 hours and 52 minutes before collapse, the fires alone explain the collapse.
Collapse not symmetrical --- The collapse was not completely symmetrical. First the east penthouse and then the west penthouse. Once the interior beams connecting the exterior posts to the interior posts failed then naturally the exterior fell, bringing the curtain wall along with it. However the exterior beams still connected the exterior posts together, except perhaps along the 20 floor gash in the unobserved south side. So the exterior structure broke loose from the cantilever W on the lower floors and fell nearly straight down.
Nonetheless, the collapse of WTC 7 is sufficiently similar to the destruction of more traditional steel framed post and beam designs, many examples of which have been posted here recently, that what is observed in the visuals and read about the firemans' reports that the weight of the evidence favors the simple explanation: without water the put out the fires, the building finally overheated, the steel lost structural strength and it fell down in a way not inconsistent with previous steel framed building fire collapses.
Before D theorists jump all over me, I point out that there is nothing in D theories which requires WTC 7 to fall in addition to WTC 1 & 2. There would be no way of knowing in advance that WTC 7 would be set on fire...
Not sure if that's a double reflection. The camera is shooting from ground level looking up at the Hilton, so it would likely be smoke in in the sky that was drifting to the southeast.
One Liberty was due east of the south tower but south of the Hilton. That dark band seen on the right side of the Hilton is probably the reflection of One Liberty. The light area and smoke on the left of the Hilton is probably the sky and the smoke in the sky. I'd have to look up the buildings on a map to be sure.
One Liberty was due east of the south tower but south of the Hilton. That dark band seen on the right side of the Hilton is probably the reflection of One Liberty. The light area and smoke on the left of the Hilton is probably the sky and the smoke in the sky. I'd have to look up the buildings on a map to be sure.
Tapes of frenzied Sept. 11 rescue effort released
The transcripts have long blank spaces where the callers’ words would have appeared, while detailing how word of the terrorist attack spread quickly through the operators.
Hmmmmmmmmm, I wonder why they blanked out so many things the callers said? What did they say that was so scary it took them 4 1/2 years to release and then when they do release them we find most of things they said were deleted.
Of course some of those things have been leaked out, as thousands of people did escape, so naturally a few recordings of what happened did make it's way to the public, and that's how we know BOMBS were going off, EYE WITNESSES that the government was not able to censure.
Now think about it logically. If you were little bush's team and heard all those people talking about bombs going off in the towers and you didn't want the sheep to know you did 9/11 what would you do?
I'll give you a clue.
You'd try to prevent the tapes from being released, which he did for 4 1/2 years, but then when they just had to come out, you'd make sure all the talk about bombs going off were deleted.
Hence, there are LONG BLANK SPACES in the transcripts.
So lets give a big hooray for little bush and company for successfully hiding the truth about what really happened from the sheep.
Although the people with intelligence (as few as they are) already know that explosives caused the towers to come down.

The building is clearly not tipping over in this picture, it's just your lying eyes, therefore, don't believe what you see and don't use any common sense because that's unpatriotic.
The transcripts have long blank spaces where the callers’ words would have appeared, while detailing how word of the terrorist attack spread quickly through the operators.
Hmmmmmmmmm, I wonder why they blanked out so many things the callers said? What did they say that was so scary it took them 4 1/2 years to release and then when they do release them we find most of things they said were deleted.
Of course some of those things have been leaked out, as thousands of people did escape, so naturally a few recordings of what happened did make it's way to the public, and that's how we know BOMBS were going off, EYE WITNESSES that the government was not able to censure.
Now think about it logically. If you were little bush's team and heard all those people talking about bombs going off in the towers and you didn't want the sheep to know you did 9/11 what would you do?
I'll give you a clue.
You'd try to prevent the tapes from being released, which he did for 4 1/2 years, but then when they just had to come out, you'd make sure all the talk about bombs going off were deleted.
Hence, there are LONG BLANK SPACES in the transcripts.
So lets give a big hooray for little bush and company for successfully hiding the truth about what really happened from the sheep.
Although the people with intelligence (as few as they are) already know that explosives caused the towers to come down.

The building is clearly not tipping over in this picture, it's just your lying eyes, therefore, don't believe what you see and don't use any common sense because that's unpatriotic.
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Mar 31 2006, 05:40 PM)
Collapse not symmetrical --- The collapse was not completely symmetrical. First the east penthouse and then the west penthouse. Once the interior beams connecting the exterior posts to the interior posts failed then naturally the exterior fell, bringing the curtain wall along with it. However the exterior beams still connected the exterior posts together, except perhaps along the 20 floor gash in the unobserved south side. So the exterior structure broke loose from the cantilever W on the lower floors and fell nearly straight down.
=
Before D theorists jump all over me, I point out that there is nothing in D theories which requires WTC 7 to fall in addition to WTC 1 & 2. There would be no way of knowing in advance that WTC 7 would be set on fire...
David, I would really be interested in a reference to a collapse that was more symmetrical then WTC7. I have looked at the CD web sites and have not seen a more perfect demolition then WTC7.
QUOTE
reasonwhy
David, I would really be interested in a reference to a collapse that was more symmetrical then WTC7. I have looked at the CD web sites and have not seen a more perfect demolition then WTC7.
David, I would really be interested in a reference to a collapse that was more symmetrical then WTC7. I have looked at the CD web sites and have not seen a more perfect demolition then WTC7.
There you go using your brains again. Don't you know how unpatriotic that is? And you forgot, your not supposed to believe your lying eyes or your ears, but only the things your government tells you to believe.

As the Charlie Sheen story ends its second week and with cookie-cutter establishment hit pieces continuing to be churned out, the attack dogs are facing an intensifying backlash from a clear majority of educated American citizens who are sick and tired of the sneering elitism of the mainstream media.
Notice how it says EDUCATED AMERICANS!
That must mean that all the fairy tale magician in a cave believers are un-educated, which makes perfect sense. That would explain why the education system in this nation has taken such a serious down turn for the worse.
The more stupid the people, the less questions about the government 9/11 cover up, and as for another bonus, the less educated, the more volunteers for the war.
But hey, whatever it takes to get that oil pumping and higher prophets for the war machine.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 10:48 PM)
I don't claim to be an expert on the design of WTC7, but if you remove part of a column on a lower floor, surely the trusses linking it to all the floors above will hold it in place? Was the penthouse really too heavy for 20+ intact floors holding the columns below it in place?
Occams razor would suggest that the columns were severed along their entire lengths, not just at one location, in order for the Penthouse to overload them.
Those are questions that people are trying to answer. It wasn't just the weight of the penthouse. It was the weight of about 40 floors above the columns near the 7th floor up to the east penthouse. Light could be seen through the building on some of those floors near the top as well as window breakage, so it is believed all of those floors collapsed internally in the region under the east penthouse starting with a column failure near the 7th floor and progressing upwards. It took a few seconds between the penthouse collapse and the start of global collapse, which would be consistent with the time it took for some of those those floors under the penthouse to collapse and reach the 7th floor area, which could have created further damage to start an east-to-west horizontal failure progression near the 7th floor level.
NIST addressed a number of different scenarios to try to account for the Penthouse sinking. Here are some excerpts from Appendix L:
"V2.7 Collapse Progresses: If only one of columns 79, 80, or 81 failed, the floor systems above the failure area may have not been able to redistribute the column loads to adjacent columns. The floor system above Floor 7 had beams and girders, concrete slabs on metal deck, wire mesh in tenant floor areas, and rebar in the core area slabs. These floor systems do not appear to have sufficient bending or catenary action to redistribute loads for failure of column 79, 80, or 81. A calculation of the catenary action that might be developed by the beams and girders framing into column 79, assuming the floors try to redistribute the loads above the area of column 79 failure, found that the girder connections reach their capacity at approximately 10 percent of the estimated service loads and the connections probably fail at approximately 25 percent of the service loads. If the floor-to-column connections had not failed, the beams would have started to yield axially at approximately 40 percent of the service load present."

Occams razor would suggest that the columns were severed along their entire lengths, not just at one location, in order for the Penthouse to overload them.
Those are questions that people are trying to answer. It wasn't just the weight of the penthouse. It was the weight of about 40 floors above the columns near the 7th floor up to the east penthouse. Light could be seen through the building on some of those floors near the top as well as window breakage, so it is believed all of those floors collapsed internally in the region under the east penthouse starting with a column failure near the 7th floor and progressing upwards. It took a few seconds between the penthouse collapse and the start of global collapse, which would be consistent with the time it took for some of those those floors under the penthouse to collapse and reach the 7th floor area, which could have created further damage to start an east-to-west horizontal failure progression near the 7th floor level.
NIST addressed a number of different scenarios to try to account for the Penthouse sinking. Here are some excerpts from Appendix L:
"V2.7 Collapse Progresses: If only one of columns 79, 80, or 81 failed, the floor systems above the failure area may have not been able to redistribute the column loads to adjacent columns. The floor system above Floor 7 had beams and girders, concrete slabs on metal deck, wire mesh in tenant floor areas, and rebar in the core area slabs. These floor systems do not appear to have sufficient bending or catenary action to redistribute loads for failure of column 79, 80, or 81. A calculation of the catenary action that might be developed by the beams and girders framing into column 79, assuming the floors try to redistribute the loads above the area of column 79 failure, found that the girder connections reach their capacity at approximately 10 percent of the estimated service loads and the connections probably fail at approximately 25 percent of the service loads. If the floor-to-column connections had not failed, the beams would have started to yield axially at approximately 40 percent of the service load present."

QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 31 2006, 03:17 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 31 2006, 05:46 PM)

Much closer to the colors then your example of the transformer arc.
That's happening within how many frames per second? This is why we need the video. It would have to be a flash which shows a change in color slow enough to be seen by the naked eye and not slowed down by video/photo equipment. It also shows a white flash before the orange. First orange, then red.
Also, does that explosion sound like a "pop"?
Cutting charges going off in a demolition:
.jpg)
.jpg)
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...irut_hilton.mpg
you can hear the popping in this video:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030221163235
Looks a lot closer to red and orange then the transformer arc below ( I am sure you can use the pictures to update your web site).
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 31 2006, 08:28 PM)

Is this correct, the penthouse was on the opposite side as the cantilevered floors and substation? I thought the massive fire that caused the collapse was supposed to be in the substation.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 1 2006, 04:50 AM)
Is this correct, the penthouse was on the opposite side as the cantilevered floors and substation? I thought the massive fire that caused the collapse was supposed to be in the substation.
The east end of the substation was at the region of columns 78, 79, and 80 which were under the penthouse kink. There were also two trusses, 1 and 2, that were west of columns 78-80 and overlapping the substation area whose failure could explain the vertical progression of the collapse under the east penthouse. Failure of columns 76-78 or the east transfer girder which all overlapped the substation area could also explain the vertical progression.
Everyone should at least read the information in NIST or in any other source that documents the construction of WTC7.
The east end of the substation was at the region of columns 78, 79, and 80 which were under the penthouse kink. There were also two trusses, 1 and 2, that were west of columns 78-80 and overlapping the substation area whose failure could explain the vertical progression of the collapse under the east penthouse. Failure of columns 76-78 or the east transfer girder which all overlapped the substation area could also explain the vertical progression.
Everyone should at least read the information in NIST or in any other source that documents the construction of WTC7.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 31 2006, 11:34 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 31 2006, 03:17 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 31 2006, 05:46 PM)

Much closer to the colors then your example of the transformer arc.
That's happening within how many frames per second? This is why we need the video. It would have to be a flash which shows a change in color slow enough to be seen by the naked eye and not slowed down by video/photo equipment. It also shows a white flash before the orange. First orange, then red.
Also, does that explosion sound like a "pop"?
Cutting charges going off in a demolition:
.jpg)
.jpg)
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030221163235
Looks a lot closer to red and orange then the transformer arc below ( I am sure you can use the pictures to update your web site).
That's a three phase powerline and not a transformer. The photos you posted are explosions and not "Flashes". You need an orange flash, then red in a low enough speed to be seen with the naked eye.
I'll stick with the fireman's quote for now. He thought it may have been electrical explosions. The fact is I posted how much high voltage was in the towers. I also found out there was an electrical substation on the 43'd floor.
http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
We have evidence there was enough electrical equipment to put on a nice show. You still don't have evidence explosives were in the building. I will admit you may have something with the thermite if you can show a thermite explosion which can blow a steel column in half that gives off an orange then red flash. One after the other. Not orange and red at the same time. From what I know about thermite it's not the best for cutting steel columns.
I also don't think someone will put color into explosives just to blow the building up.
I have a real problem with the ejecta not being part of the conversation. In all the thermite explosions I have seen they create lots of ejecta. This guy just talks about popping and flashing.
Then there is the problem with an explosion in the middle of the building which brings the top down. How does that work?
Have the Conspiracy sites undated their site with the possible electrical flashes? Tell them they can use the photo off my site. Considering they haven't changed the "Pull it" pages to include all the fireman's quotes saying building 7 was a lost cause, or they haven't pulled the fireman's "Two Lines" quote because it deceptively implies the 78th floor had light fire then they all had light fires. I think what I've done is more than fair. Can you point me to the sites that take this information into account?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 31 2006, 11:50 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 31 2006, 08:28 PM)

Is this correct, the penthouse was on the opposite side as the cantilevered floors and substation? I thought the massive fire that caused the collapse was supposed to be in the substation.
Who told you that?
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 31 2006, 09:19 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 1 2006, 04:50 AM)
Is this correct, the penthouse was on the opposite side as the cantilevered floors and substation? I thought the massive fire that caused the collapse was supposed to be in the substation.
The east end of the substation was at the region of columns 78, 79, and 80 which were under the penthouse kink. There were also two trusses, 1 and 2, that were west of columns 78-80 and overlapping the substation area whose failure could explain the vertical progression of the collapse under the east penthouse. Failure of columns 76-78 or the east transfer girder which all overlapped the substation area could also explain the vertical progression.
Everyone should at least read the information in NIST or in any other source that documents the construction of WTC7.
I did without pictures (I was searching for Disproportionate Global Collapse):
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/a.../nist_wtc7.html
That is why I am surprised to see the columns initiating collapse farther over then the substation. I see why NIST does not want to release the WTC7 report.
We have evidence there was enough electrical equipment to put on a nice show. You still don't have evidence explosives were in the building. I will admit you may have something with the thermite if you can show a thermite explosion which can blow a steel column in half that gives off an orange then red flash.
Thermite itself is not an explosive. It generates heat, light, and sparks. There's some videos of thermite reactions on the web.
Thanks for the link - I hadn't seen the CNN article.
As to your subjective (and rhetorical) question re: "What's IT supposed to sound like?"
Thankfully, I have never been in or near a 'gravity-driven' or an 'explosives-driven' collapse, so I can't answer your question with truthful honesty. Does it sound like a pinging?... an onrushing train?... a grinder turning at 12000 rpm? I dunno... and frankly don't really care to attach subjective titles to define 'noises' heard. I realize that you'd love to waste hundreds of pages in semantics regarding how one sound differs from another (through words)... but that's just a waste of my time (as far as I can see). I could also waste hundreds of pages trying to explain to you what a 150' yacht sounds like when it impacts an unseen rock at cruise speed... the tearing, ripping, explosive sounds as the hull structure ruptures and fails, but what good would that do? It is still subjective evidence.
What we do have is testimony from expert witnesses in the fire-fighter field who know the difference from a transformer explosion and a bomb explosion.
Far too many of these expert witnesses referred to the sounds as comparable to 'bombs' going off.
What do you have.... sophistry? (Maybe they were WRONG... MAYBE... it was something else?)
Sorry, YID... as I've said before, my father was a fire-fighter with the DND, and I listened to all his stories. For you to IMPLY that these 'professionals' do not understand different sounds in life & death circumstances, is like you trying to tell me my father was a LIAR.
My father didn't work as just a volunteer fire-man, he was a career professional dealing with naval ship fires which often deal with various 'explosions'. Part of their training was to distinguish between various 'explosive' sounds...
Is this a 'whoosh' of a flashover?... or a boom of exploding chemicals? They had specific exercises to go on practice runs at the DND base and were presented with various real explosions from many different types of causes (specifically so they could distinguish the risks they may be facing in real life scenarios)...
Was that 'sound'.. JUST an electrical transformer exploding... or was it an ordinance blast? These could be life or death questions for a firefighter.
Please don't try to imply that these trained firefighters were no smarter than you when it comes to interpreting distinctive sounds of different 'explosions'.
If I fire-fighter tells me, "That sounded like a bomb !" ... I will believe that what he meant was... that it sounded like a BOMB... as opposed to a simple transformer explosion, and that he would recognize the difference.
Your adjectives of "A hiss? a whoosh? a ping? , really DON'T impress me at all.
Those of you who denigrate the fire-fighters involved with 9/11 should be ashamed, (but I know you won't be). You will continue your BS that... they are no 'smarter' than you in their field.
YOUR 'opinions' of their testimony does NOT alter my belief in their testimony.... however, I will admit that you will probably fool many with your sophistry.
To be honest, I do NOT have great confidence in 'majority opinions'... in my view, the 'majority' of people are not really highly intelligent persons.
Recall your philosophical studies... (I assume you read with great attentiveness Plato's "Republic"?)
IF SO, you will recall how he refuted the sophists, and clearly showed that "Democracy" is a delusion fueled by the Oligarchists... (who are well aware that the masses can be easily misled and propagandized).
I think Goebbels also mentioned this propagandizing of the masses?
agreed.
Have the Conspiracy sites undated their site with the possible electrical flashes? Tell them they can use the photo off my site. Considering they haven't changed the "Pull it" pages to include all the fireman's quotes saying building 7 was a lost cause, or they haven't pulled the fireman's "Two Lines" quote because it deceptively implies the 78th floor had light fire then they all had light fires. I think what I've done is more than fair. Can you point me to the sites that take this information into account?
I did see you changed your site to include some of the information I provided, thanks ( I have more information ). I have nothing to do with the so called CT sites and some are ridicules. I have used them for research because of the lack of information about the WTC on the internet. In fact it was only those sites that actually called the WTC a “ tube within a tube” when I did a search.
I agree with you and personally would rather read the entire quote .
Thanks for the link - I hadn't seen the CNN article.
As to your subjective (and rhetorical) question re: "What's IT supposed to sound like?"
Thankfully, I have never been in or near a 'gravity-driven' or an 'explosives-driven' collapse, so I can't answer your question with truthful honesty. Does it sound like a pinging?... an onrushing train?... a ginder turning at 12000 rpm? I dunno... and frankly don't really care to attach subjective titles to define 'noises' heard. I realize that you'd love to waste hundreds of pages in semantics regarding how one sound differs from another (through words)... but that's just a waste of my time (as far as I can see). I could also waste hundreds of pages trying to explain to you what a 150' yacht sounds like when it impacts an unseen rock at cruise speed... the tearing, ripping, explosive sounds as the hull structure ruptures and fails, but what good would that do? It is still subjective evidence.
What we do have is testimony from expert witnesses in the fire-fighter field who know the difference from a transformer explosion and a bomb explosion.
Far too many of these expert witnesses referred to the sounds as comparable to 'bombs' going off.
What do you have.... sophistry? (Maybe they were WRONG... MAYBE... it was something else?)
Sorry, YID... as I've said before, my father was a fire-fighter with the DND, and I listened to all his stories. For you to IMPLY that these 'professionals' do not understand different sounds in life & death circumstances, is like you trying to tell me my father was a LIAR.
My father didn't work as just a volunteer fire-man, he was a career professional dealing with naval ship fires which often deal with various 'explosions'. Part of their training was to distinguish between various 'explosive' sounds...
Is this a 'whoosh' of a flashover?... or a boom of exploding chemicals? They had specific exercises to go on practice runs at the DND base and were presented with various real explosions from many different types of causes (specifically so they could distinguish the risks they may be facing in real life scenarios)...
Was that 'sound'.. JUST an electrical transformer exploding... or was it an ordinance blast? These could be life or death questions for a firefighter.
Please don't try to imply that these trained firefighters were no smarter than you when it comes to interpreting distinctive sounds of different 'explosions'.
If I fire-fighter tells me, "That sounded like a bomb !" ... I will believe that what he meant was... that it sounded like a BOMB... as opposed to a simple transformer explosion, and that he would recognize the difference.
Your adjectives of "A hiss? a whoosh? a ping? , really DON'T impress me at all.
Those of you who denigrate the fire-fighters involved with 9/11 should be ashamed, (but I know you won't be). You will continue your BS that... they are no 'smarter' than you in their field.
YOUR 'opinions' of their testimony does NOT alter my belief in their testimony.... however, I will admit that you will probably fool many with your sophistry.
To be honest, I do NOT have great confidence in 'majority opinions'... in my view, the 'majority' of people are not really highly intelligent persons.
Recall your philosophical studies... (I assume you read with great attentiveness Plato's "Republic"?)
IF SO, you will recall how he refuted the sophists, and clearly showed that "Democracy" is a delusion fueled by the Oligarchists... (who are well aware that the masses can be easily misled and propagandized).
I think Goebbels also mentioned this propagandizing of the masses?
“The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said ‘Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.’ I couldn’t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.
“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.
“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode "
So tell me oh great faux, Did the bodies have thermite or some other explosive in them?
Mind you, I have always maintined a transformer is but one possibility of the "FLASHES". I have also shown where steel snapping sounds like an explosion before a collapse.
http://www.911myths.com/collapse2.rm
http://www.911myths.com/Big_Blue_Animation.avi
I said the fireman heard explosive sounds. They just weren't explosives involved.
Have the Conspiracy sites undated their site with the possible electrical flashes? Tell them they can use the photo off my site. Considering they haven't changed the "Pull it" pages to include all the fireman's quotes saying building 7 was a lost cause, or they haven't pulled the fireman's "Two Lines" quote because it deceptively implies the 78th floor had light fire then they all had light fires. I think what I've done is more than fair. Can you point me to the sites that take this information into account?
I did see you changed your site to include some of the information I provided, thanks ( I have more information ). I have nothing to do with the so called CT sites and some are ridicules. I have used them for research because of the lack of information about the WTC on the internet. In fact it was only those sites that actually called the WTC a “ tube within a tube” when I did a search.
I agree with you and personally would rather read the entire quote .
When I see a video of something that looks like a yellow flash followed by a red one and it can blow a steel column in two I'll post it on my sight. Those photos you gave me don't meet my test. I have no problem posting it on my sight. It would only be another plausible explanation but one lacking evidence of being there.
Thanks for the link - I hadn't seen the CNN article.
As to your subjective (and rhetorical) question re: "What's IT supposed to sound like?"
Thankfully, I have never been in or near a 'gravity-driven' or an 'explosives-driven' collapse, so I can't answer your question with truthful honesty. Does it sound like a pinging?... an onrushing train?... a ginder turning at 12000 rpm? I dunno... and frankly don't really care to attach subjective titles to define 'noises' heard. I realize that you'd love to waste hundreds of pages in semantics regarding how one sound differs from another (through words)... but that's just a waste of my time (as far as I can see). I could also waste hundreds of pages trying to explain to you what a 150' yacht sounds like when it impacts an unseen rock at cruise speed... the tearing, ripping, explosive sounds as the hull structure ruptures and fails, but what good would that do? It is still subjective evidence.
What we do have is testimony from expert witnesses in the fire-fighter field who know the difference from a transformer explosion and a bomb explosion.
Far too many of these expert witnesses referred to the sounds as comparable to 'bombs' going off.
What do you have.... sophistry? (Maybe they were WRONG... MAYBE... it was something else?)
Sorry, YID... as I've said before, my father was a fire-fighter with the DND, and I listened to all his stories. For you to IMPLY that these 'professionals' do not understand different sounds in life & death circumstances, is like you trying to tell me my father was a LIAR.
My father didn't work as just a volunteer fire-man, he was a career professional dealing with naval ship fires which often deal with various 'explosions'. Part of their training was to distinguish between various 'explosive' sounds...
Is this a 'whoosh' of a flashover?... or a boom of exploding chemicals? They had specific exercises to go on practice runs at the DND base and were presented with various real explosions from many different types of causes (specifically so they could distinguish the risks they may be facing in real life scenarios)...
Was that 'sound'.. JUST an electrical transformer exploding... or was it an ordinance blast? These could be life or death questions for a firefighter.
Please don't try to imply that these trained firefighters were no smarter than you when it comes to interpreting distinctive sounds of different 'explosions'.
If I fire-fighter tells me, "That sounded like a bomb !" ... I will believe that what he meant was... that it sounded like a BOMB... as opposed to a simple transformer explosion, and that he would recognize the difference.
Your adjectives of "A hiss? a whoosh? a ping? , really DON'T impress me at all.
Those of you who denigrate the fire-fighters involved with 9/11 should be ashamed, (but I know you won't be). You will continue your BS that... they are no 'smarter' than you in their field.
YOUR 'opinions' of their testimony does NOT alter my belief in their testimony.... however, I will admit that you will probably fool many with your sophistry.
To be honest, I do NOT have great confidence in 'majority opinions'... in my view, the 'majority' of people are not really highly intelligent persons.
Recall your philosophical studies... (I assume you read with great attentiveness Plato's "Republic"?)
IF SO, you will recall how he refuted the sophists, and clearly showed that "Democracy" is a delusion fueled by the Oligarchists... (who are well aware that the masses can be easily misled and propagandized).
I think Goebbels also mentioned this propagandizing of the masses?
“The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said ‘Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.’ I couldn’t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.
“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.
“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode "
So tell me oh great faux, Did the bodies have thermite or some other explosive in them?
Mind you, I have always maintined a transformer is but one possibility of the "FLASHES". I have also shown where steel snapping sounds like an explosion before a collapse.
http://www.911myths.com/collapse2.rm
http://www.911myths.com/Big_Blue_Animation.avi
I said the fireman heard explosive sounds. They just weren't explosives involved.
No ... I don't suppose the falling bodies had associations with thermite.
Personally, I don't see that you have offered any REAL evidence that 'transformers' were involved with the 'exposions'. We all know that in certain conditions transformers can explode... so what?
- the 'offering of alternative explanations does NOT 'prove' anything.
Can transformer explosions explain the near free-fall collapse?
NO - They CAN NOT!
Alternatively... 'explosives' CAN explain 'near free-fall' collapse.
If you ask me to choose between the two--- (WHICH offers the more realistic, scientific, rational explanation?)... I'll have to go with the 'explosives' theory.
I'm sorry, but - exploding electrical transformers have NEVER been known (or documented to be), the leading cause of a near free-fall collapse, (to the best of my recollection)...
Care to support your 'scientific' theory with historical precedents?
PS - your 'Site' is a joke which is full of obfuscations, deletions, and diversions. (although, to be honest, at this time I can't accuse you of propagating OUTRIGHT LIES...)
you are too sneaky for that
agreed.
Coming from one who will not reason that's pretty weak after your comment in response to my answers of your questions. You remember, that thread that you started with a title that was a distortion, the banishment session the DI's here got you to start. That I copied and started anew with the title, " Why So Important There Was No Concrete Core?, Selective topics, disinformation of 9-11", where you showed how unaccountable you are.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637
You asked,
agreed.
Coming from one who will not reason that's pretty weak after your comment in response to my answers of your questions. You remember, that thread that you started with a title that was a distortion, the banishment session the DI's here got you to start. That I copied and started anew with the title, " Why So Important There Was No Concrete Core?, Selective topics, disinformation of 9-11", where you showed how unaccountable you are.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637
You asked,
"I would like to know how the collapse time would be different for an all-concrete core compared to a steel core.
I explained that concrete can be instantly fractured to fall freely by a relatively small amount explosive cast into it if it is centralized in the concrete.
Then you asked how the 47 steel interior box columns ringing the core out side the core wall were cut.
And I explained that 2 steel plates acting as a corner fill piece, fitting the column tightly with C4 between them, cast in the concrete floor would form a cutting plane that would cut 4 inch steel like a shear. And that is what we see all over the WTC. Interior box columns cut square, reddened from the instant high heat.
Free fall can only happen within a very narrow set of circumstances. Pulverization can only happen in a very narrow set of circumstances. Cutting 4" inch thick steel box columns can only happen in a very narrow set of circumstances, and they all happened.
So you and fox are here trying to enforce a situation where not only do you not accept a building material for the tower core that happens to be the most common on the planet, concrete, but also enables free fall, and total encapsulation of HE for decades preserving it and distributing it, manifesting total pulverization; but you don't want anybody else to show any interest in it or support for it too.
Hmmm, ......... this is fairly transparent.
Perhaps this helps to explain the 'gulf' between the 'CTers' and the OCT's?
I have noted that the majority of the OCT's reject "religious beliefs" (often bringing up the 'Creationist Cartoon' strawman).
The human psyche is in a very sad state of affairs today... (especially in the materialistic 'western' civilizations).
May the Supreme Being help us all.
From the article "Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center" by James Glanz, New York Times, November 29, 2001.
Common Sense compared this claim to horse waste - is there a reason?
9/11 conspiracies don’t pass the smell test
By DOUG THOMPSON
Like many Americans, I don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963. Too many things about the Warren Commission report just don't add up and the dinner conversation my wife and I had with former Gov. John B. Connally in 1982 confirms those suspicions.
I also don't believe James Earl Ray acted alone in the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King. I lived and worked in Ray's hometown of Alton, Illinois, for 11 years and interviewed many who knew him. He just wasn't smart enough to pull off such a well-planned execution.
However, I cannot - and will not - join the chorus of those who claim the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were an inside job staged by the Bush administration, the Central Intelligence Agency or anyone else connected with our government. I cannot - and will not - be a party to those who claim the buildings were destroyed not by hijacked airliners but by explosives planted inside the structures.
The conspiracy claims by those who say Osama bin Laden and is rabid band of followers could not possibly have planned and executed the attacks that killed more than 3,000 Americans on that fateful day are, in my opinion, just plain wrong.
I was at the Pentagon the day the plane hit, taking pictures and interviewing witnesses. I talked to the cab driver who saw the plane swoop low over Columbia Pike, knocking down a light pole that fell on his cab. I talked to the driver of the car behind him, an Arlington businessman still haunted by the nightmares of what he saw. I interviewed dozens of others who saw the plane hit. I smelled the burning jet fuel.
Months later, I stood in a lab at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Maryland as an engineer I've known for 25 years ran the computer simulation that shows how the unique construction of the World Trade Center towers contributed to the inevitable collapse after the planes hit.
In July and August of 2003, I watched hours and hours of video and film footage shot by news crews, film students and private citizens in New York on September 11 and edited it into a short documentary for the second anniversary of the attacks. As part of that project, I talked to firemen, police officers and first responders in New York City and then with friends who have worked in the American and foreign intelligence communities for many, many years.
Everything that I've learned from these folks - those who were there and those whose judgment I trust - support the facts that Al Qaeda planned and executed the attacks.
Some say there are no way novice pilots with only a few hours of simulator training could have guided three modern jetliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. I'm a pilot and have flown Boeing 757, 767 and 777 simulators as part of research on stories. The maneuvers made by the hijackers on September 11 were relatively simple course corrections that are not that difficult in planes equipped with modern navigational computers. Some evidence uncovered during the investigations say the hijackers originally wanted to hit the Potomac River side of the Pentagon where Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office is located but that would have required more difficult navigation to miss the Washington Monument.
Others base their beliefs of a conspiracy on the collapse of Building 7 in New York, which did not appear to be seriously damaged. They say video of the collapse suggests it was imploded by an internal explosion. I asked demolition experts and structural engineers to watch video footage from several angles. Thye concluded the collapse was not consistent with a detonated implosion. First responders at the scene also reported large chunks of steel and concrete striking the building. The NIST study, conducted by a Democratic member of their staff, concluded the building was damaged internally.
I'm usually the first to suspect my government of malfeasance. I love a good conspiracy theory as much as Oliver Stone but I cannot buy into this one.
Reasonable doubts about the Kennedy and King deaths exists to this day because of striking conflicts of reports from witnesses on the scene and the existence of credible evidence from experts that refute the "offiical" versions. But the many theories surrounding 9/11 come mostly from conspiracy buffs. I have yet to get a report from a structural engineer or demolitions expert that support the theories of internal explosions and too many witnesses saw the planes. If an engineer or expert with credentials that could be verified came forward I might be willing to take another look at this but in the absence of such, I'll go with the conclusions of experts I trust.
My 40-plus years as a journalist, coupled with too many years working inside the government, tell me that the scenarios laid out by the 9/11 conspiracy buffs just don't pass the smell test.
The 9/11 attacks succeeded because of the incredible improbability that such a ragtag group could pull it off and our lackluster intelligence agencies failed to act on credible reports of terrorist activity. I know my government. They're just not good enough to pull off something like this.
© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/200...ies_dont_p.html
The east end of the substation was at the region of columns 78, 79, and 80 which were under the penthouse kink. There were also two trusses, 1 and 2, that were west of columns 78-80 and overlapping the substation area whose failure could explain the vertical progression of the collapse under the east penthouse. Failure of columns 76-78 or the east transfer girder which all overlapped the substation area could also explain the vertical progression.
Everyone should at least read the information in NIST or in any other source that documents the construction of WTC7.
I did without pictures (I was searching for Disproportionate Global Collapse):
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/a.../nist_wtc7.html
That is why I am surprised to see the columns initiating collapse farther over then the substation. I see why NIST does not want to release the WTC7 report.
All of the structural elements I listed in the previous post are within the substation area. Even so, being within the substation area is not necessarily a requirement for a failure to occur.
NIST has already released a couple of reports on WTC7. I believe the final was due in January but has been delayed.
NIST has already released a couple of reports on WTC7. I believe the final was due in January but has been delayed.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 1 2006, 05:26 AM)
We have evidence there was enough electrical equipment to put on a nice show. You still don't have evidence explosives were in the building. I will admit you may have something with the thermite if you can show a thermite explosion which can blow a steel column in half that gives off an orange then red flash.
Thermite itself is not an explosive. It generates heat, light, and sparks. There's some videos of thermite reactions on the web.
QUOTE
by Yid
Four minutes after the first aircraft hit this call was rcvd by 911 operator.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/30/911.calls...p.ap/index.html
Once again I ask, if a collapsing building that has interior floors and columns snapping and falling, just what is it supposed to sound like? a hiss? a whoosh?
Cracks appeared in the walls before the collapses. The building was shifting. My lil' ol' house shifts during the winter and makes cracking and sometimes booming noises. If a 110 story building is shifting loads in ways that the designers had not anticiapted as a normal , day to day occurances just what would that sound like? A hiss? a whoosh? a ping?
Four minutes after the first aircraft hit this call was rcvd by 911 operator.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/30/911.calls...p.ap/index.html
Once again I ask, if a collapsing building that has interior floors and columns snapping and falling, just what is it supposed to sound like? a hiss? a whoosh?
Cracks appeared in the walls before the collapses. The building was shifting. My lil' ol' house shifts during the winter and makes cracking and sometimes booming noises. If a 110 story building is shifting loads in ways that the designers had not anticiapted as a normal , day to day occurances just what would that sound like? A hiss? a whoosh? a ping?
Thanks for the link - I hadn't seen the CNN article.
As to your subjective (and rhetorical) question re: "What's IT supposed to sound like?"
Thankfully, I have never been in or near a 'gravity-driven' or an 'explosives-driven' collapse, so I can't answer your question with truthful honesty. Does it sound like a pinging?... an onrushing train?... a grinder turning at 12000 rpm? I dunno... and frankly don't really care to attach subjective titles to define 'noises' heard. I realize that you'd love to waste hundreds of pages in semantics regarding how one sound differs from another (through words)... but that's just a waste of my time (as far as I can see). I could also waste hundreds of pages trying to explain to you what a 150' yacht sounds like when it impacts an unseen rock at cruise speed... the tearing, ripping, explosive sounds as the hull structure ruptures and fails, but what good would that do? It is still subjective evidence.
What we do have is testimony from expert witnesses in the fire-fighter field who know the difference from a transformer explosion and a bomb explosion.
Far too many of these expert witnesses referred to the sounds as comparable to 'bombs' going off.
What do you have.... sophistry? (Maybe they were WRONG... MAYBE... it was something else?)
Sorry, YID... as I've said before, my father was a fire-fighter with the DND, and I listened to all his stories. For you to IMPLY that these 'professionals' do not understand different sounds in life & death circumstances, is like you trying to tell me my father was a LIAR.
My father didn't work as just a volunteer fire-man, he was a career professional dealing with naval ship fires which often deal with various 'explosions'. Part of their training was to distinguish between various 'explosive' sounds...
Is this a 'whoosh' of a flashover?... or a boom of exploding chemicals? They had specific exercises to go on practice runs at the DND base and were presented with various real explosions from many different types of causes (specifically so they could distinguish the risks they may be facing in real life scenarios)...
Was that 'sound'.. JUST an electrical transformer exploding... or was it an ordinance blast? These could be life or death questions for a firefighter.
Please don't try to imply that these trained firefighters were no smarter than you when it comes to interpreting distinctive sounds of different 'explosions'.
If I fire-fighter tells me, "That sounded like a bomb !" ... I will believe that what he meant was... that it sounded like a BOMB... as opposed to a simple transformer explosion, and that he would recognize the difference.
Your adjectives of "A hiss? a whoosh? a ping? , really DON'T impress me at all.
Those of you who denigrate the fire-fighters involved with 9/11 should be ashamed, (but I know you won't be). You will continue your BS that... they are no 'smarter' than you in their field.
YOUR 'opinions' of their testimony does NOT alter my belief in their testimony.... however, I will admit that you will probably fool many with your sophistry.
To be honest, I do NOT have great confidence in 'majority opinions'... in my view, the 'majority' of people are not really highly intelligent persons.
Recall your philosophical studies... (I assume you read with great attentiveness Plato's "Republic"?)
IF SO, you will recall how he refuted the sophists, and clearly showed that "Democracy" is a delusion fueled by the Oligarchists... (who are well aware that the masses can be easily misled and propagandized).
I think Goebbels also mentioned this propagandizing of the masses?
QUOTE
posted by reasonwhy
Anyone who asks Christophera a question or responds to his cement core is also spamming the thread.
Anyone who asks Christophera a question or responds to his cement core is also spamming the thread.
agreed.
For those wanting to listen to the 911 calls. Here is a collection of mp3 downloads
http://kutv.com/national/topstories_story_090125653.html
http://kutv.com/national/topstories_story_090125653.html
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 31 2006, 09:26 PM)
Have the Conspiracy sites undated their site with the possible electrical flashes? Tell them they can use the photo off my site. Considering they haven't changed the "Pull it" pages to include all the fireman's quotes saying building 7 was a lost cause, or they haven't pulled the fireman's "Two Lines" quote because it deceptively implies the 78th floor had light fire then they all had light fires. I think what I've done is more than fair. Can you point me to the sites that take this information into account?
I did see you changed your site to include some of the information I provided, thanks ( I have more information ). I have nothing to do with the so called CT sites and some are ridicules. I have used them for research because of the lack of information about the WTC on the internet. In fact it was only those sites that actually called the WTC a “ tube within a tube” when I did a search.
I agree with you and personally would rather read the entire quote .
QUOTE (Foxx+Apr 1 2006, 01:09 AM)
QUOTE
by Yid
Four minutes after the first aircraft hit this call was rcvd by 911 operator.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/30/911.calls...p.ap/index.html
Once again I ask, if a collapsing building that has interior floors and columns snapping and falling, just what is it supposed to sound like? a hiss? a whoosh?
Cracks appeared in the walls before the collapses. The building was shifting. My lil' ol' house shifts during the winter and makes cracking and sometimes booming noises. If a 110 story building is shifting loads in ways that the designers had not anticiapted as a normal , day to day occurances just what would that sound like? A hiss? a whoosh? a ping?
Four minutes after the first aircraft hit this call was rcvd by 911 operator.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/30/911.calls...p.ap/index.html
Once again I ask, if a collapsing building that has interior floors and columns snapping and falling, just what is it supposed to sound like? a hiss? a whoosh?
Cracks appeared in the walls before the collapses. The building was shifting. My lil' ol' house shifts during the winter and makes cracking and sometimes booming noises. If a 110 story building is shifting loads in ways that the designers had not anticiapted as a normal , day to day occurances just what would that sound like? A hiss? a whoosh? a ping?
Thanks for the link - I hadn't seen the CNN article.
As to your subjective (and rhetorical) question re: "What's IT supposed to sound like?"
Thankfully, I have never been in or near a 'gravity-driven' or an 'explosives-driven' collapse, so I can't answer your question with truthful honesty. Does it sound like a pinging?... an onrushing train?... a ginder turning at 12000 rpm? I dunno... and frankly don't really care to attach subjective titles to define 'noises' heard. I realize that you'd love to waste hundreds of pages in semantics regarding how one sound differs from another (through words)... but that's just a waste of my time (as far as I can see). I could also waste hundreds of pages trying to explain to you what a 150' yacht sounds like when it impacts an unseen rock at cruise speed... the tearing, ripping, explosive sounds as the hull structure ruptures and fails, but what good would that do? It is still subjective evidence.
What we do have is testimony from expert witnesses in the fire-fighter field who know the difference from a transformer explosion and a bomb explosion.
Far too many of these expert witnesses referred to the sounds as comparable to 'bombs' going off.
What do you have.... sophistry? (Maybe they were WRONG... MAYBE... it was something else?)
Sorry, YID... as I've said before, my father was a fire-fighter with the DND, and I listened to all his stories. For you to IMPLY that these 'professionals' do not understand different sounds in life & death circumstances, is like you trying to tell me my father was a LIAR.
My father didn't work as just a volunteer fire-man, he was a career professional dealing with naval ship fires which often deal with various 'explosions'. Part of their training was to distinguish between various 'explosive' sounds...
Is this a 'whoosh' of a flashover?... or a boom of exploding chemicals? They had specific exercises to go on practice runs at the DND base and were presented with various real explosions from many different types of causes (specifically so they could distinguish the risks they may be facing in real life scenarios)...
Was that 'sound'.. JUST an electrical transformer exploding... or was it an ordinance blast? These could be life or death questions for a firefighter.
Please don't try to imply that these trained firefighters were no smarter than you when it comes to interpreting distinctive sounds of different 'explosions'.
If I fire-fighter tells me, "That sounded like a bomb !" ... I will believe that what he meant was... that it sounded like a BOMB... as opposed to a simple transformer explosion, and that he would recognize the difference.
Your adjectives of "A hiss? a whoosh? a ping? , really DON'T impress me at all.
Those of you who denigrate the fire-fighters involved with 9/11 should be ashamed, (but I know you won't be). You will continue your BS that... they are no 'smarter' than you in their field.
YOUR 'opinions' of their testimony does NOT alter my belief in their testimony.... however, I will admit that you will probably fool many with your sophistry.
To be honest, I do NOT have great confidence in 'majority opinions'... in my view, the 'majority' of people are not really highly intelligent persons.
Recall your philosophical studies... (I assume you read with great attentiveness Plato's "Republic"?)
IF SO, you will recall how he refuted the sophists, and clearly showed that "Democracy" is a delusion fueled by the Oligarchists... (who are well aware that the masses can be easily misled and propagandized).
I think Goebbels also mentioned this propagandizing of the masses?
“The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said ‘Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.’ I couldn’t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.
“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.
“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode "
So tell me oh great faux, Did the bodies have thermite or some other explosive in them?
Mind you, I have always maintined a transformer is but one possibility of the "FLASHES". I have also shown where steel snapping sounds like an explosion before a collapse.
http://www.911myths.com/collapse2.rm
http://www.911myths.com/Big_Blue_Animation.avi
I said the fireman heard explosive sounds. They just weren't explosives involved.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 1 2006, 01:32 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 31 2006, 09:26 PM)
Have the Conspiracy sites undated their site with the possible electrical flashes? Tell them they can use the photo off my site. Considering they haven't changed the "Pull it" pages to include all the fireman's quotes saying building 7 was a lost cause, or they haven't pulled the fireman's "Two Lines" quote because it deceptively implies the 78th floor had light fire then they all had light fires. I think what I've done is more than fair. Can you point me to the sites that take this information into account?
I did see you changed your site to include some of the information I provided, thanks ( I have more information ). I have nothing to do with the so called CT sites and some are ridicules. I have used them for research because of the lack of information about the WTC on the internet. In fact it was only those sites that actually called the WTC a “ tube within a tube” when I did a search.
I agree with you and personally would rather read the entire quote .
When I see a video of something that looks like a yellow flash followed by a red one and it can blow a steel column in two I'll post it on my sight. Those photos you gave me don't meet my test. I have no problem posting it on my sight. It would only be another plausible explanation but one lacking evidence of being there.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 1 2006, 06:43 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Apr 1 2006, 01:09 AM)
QUOTE
by Yid
Four minutes after the first aircraft hit this call was rcvd by 911 operator.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/30/911.calls...p.ap/index.html
Once again I ask, if a collapsing building that has interior floors and columns snapping and falling, just what is it supposed to sound like? a hiss? a whoosh?
Cracks appeared in the walls before the collapses. The building was shifting. My lil' ol' house shifts during the winter and makes cracking and sometimes booming noises. If a 110 story building is shifting loads in ways that the designers had not anticiapted as a normal , day to day occurances just what would that sound like? A hiss? a whoosh? a ping?
Four minutes after the first aircraft hit this call was rcvd by 911 operator.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/30/911.calls...p.ap/index.html
Once again I ask, if a collapsing building that has interior floors and columns snapping and falling, just what is it supposed to sound like? a hiss? a whoosh?
Cracks appeared in the walls before the collapses. The building was shifting. My lil' ol' house shifts during the winter and makes cracking and sometimes booming noises. If a 110 story building is shifting loads in ways that the designers had not anticiapted as a normal , day to day occurances just what would that sound like? A hiss? a whoosh? a ping?
Thanks for the link - I hadn't seen the CNN article.
As to your subjective (and rhetorical) question re: "What's IT supposed to sound like?"
Thankfully, I have never been in or near a 'gravity-driven' or an 'explosives-driven' collapse, so I can't answer your question with truthful honesty. Does it sound like a pinging?... an onrushing train?... a ginder turning at 12000 rpm? I dunno... and frankly don't really care to attach subjective titles to define 'noises' heard. I realize that you'd love to waste hundreds of pages in semantics regarding how one sound differs from another (through words)... but that's just a waste of my time (as far as I can see). I could also waste hundreds of pages trying to explain to you what a 150' yacht sounds like when it impacts an unseen rock at cruise speed... the tearing, ripping, explosive sounds as the hull structure ruptures and fails, but what good would that do? It is still subjective evidence.
What we do have is testimony from expert witnesses in the fire-fighter field who know the difference from a transformer explosion and a bomb explosion.
Far too many of these expert witnesses referred to the sounds as comparable to 'bombs' going off.
What do you have.... sophistry? (Maybe they were WRONG... MAYBE... it was something else?)
Sorry, YID... as I've said before, my father was a fire-fighter with the DND, and I listened to all his stories. For you to IMPLY that these 'professionals' do not understand different sounds in life & death circumstances, is like you trying to tell me my father was a LIAR.
My father didn't work as just a volunteer fire-man, he was a career professional dealing with naval ship fires which often deal with various 'explosions'. Part of their training was to distinguish between various 'explosive' sounds...
Is this a 'whoosh' of a flashover?... or a boom of exploding chemicals? They had specific exercises to go on practice runs at the DND base and were presented with various real explosions from many different types of causes (specifically so they could distinguish the risks they may be facing in real life scenarios)...
Was that 'sound'.. JUST an electrical transformer exploding... or was it an ordinance blast? These could be life or death questions for a firefighter.
Please don't try to imply that these trained firefighters were no smarter than you when it comes to interpreting distinctive sounds of different 'explosions'.
If I fire-fighter tells me, "That sounded like a bomb !" ... I will believe that what he meant was... that it sounded like a BOMB... as opposed to a simple transformer explosion, and that he would recognize the difference.
Your adjectives of "A hiss? a whoosh? a ping? , really DON'T impress me at all.
Those of you who denigrate the fire-fighters involved with 9/11 should be ashamed, (but I know you won't be). You will continue your BS that... they are no 'smarter' than you in their field.
YOUR 'opinions' of their testimony does NOT alter my belief in their testimony.... however, I will admit that you will probably fool many with your sophistry.
To be honest, I do NOT have great confidence in 'majority opinions'... in my view, the 'majority' of people are not really highly intelligent persons.
Recall your philosophical studies... (I assume you read with great attentiveness Plato's "Republic"?)
IF SO, you will recall how he refuted the sophists, and clearly showed that "Democracy" is a delusion fueled by the Oligarchists... (who are well aware that the masses can be easily misled and propagandized).
I think Goebbels also mentioned this propagandizing of the masses?
“The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said ‘Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.’ I couldn’t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.
“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.
“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode "
So tell me oh great faux, Did the bodies have thermite or some other explosive in them?
Mind you, I have always maintined a transformer is but one possibility of the "FLASHES". I have also shown where steel snapping sounds like an explosion before a collapse.
http://www.911myths.com/collapse2.rm
http://www.911myths.com/Big_Blue_Animation.avi
I said the fireman heard explosive sounds. They just weren't explosives involved.
No ... I don't suppose the falling bodies had associations with thermite.
Personally, I don't see that you have offered any REAL evidence that 'transformers' were involved with the 'exposions'. We all know that in certain conditions transformers can explode... so what?
- the 'offering of alternative explanations does NOT 'prove' anything.
Can transformer explosions explain the near free-fall collapse?
NO - They CAN NOT!
Alternatively... 'explosives' CAN explain 'near free-fall' collapse.
If you ask me to choose between the two--- (WHICH offers the more realistic, scientific, rational explanation?)... I'll have to go with the 'explosives' theory.
I'm sorry, but - exploding electrical transformers have NEVER been known (or documented to be), the leading cause of a near free-fall collapse, (to the best of my recollection)...
Care to support your 'scientific' theory with historical precedents?
PS - your 'Site' is a joke which is full of obfuscations, deletions, and diversions. (although, to be honest, at this time I can't accuse you of propagating OUTRIGHT LIES...)
you are too sneaky for that
QUOTE (Foxx+Apr 1 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE
posted by reasonwhy
Anyone who asks Christophera a question or responds to his cement core is also spamming the thread.
Anyone who asks Christophera a question or responds to his cement core is also spamming the thread.
agreed.
Coming from one who will not reason that's pretty weak after your comment in response to my answers of your questions. You remember, that thread that you started with a title that was a distortion, the banishment session the DI's here got you to start. That I copied and started anew with the title, " Why So Important There Was No Concrete Core?, Selective topics, disinformation of 9-11", where you showed how unaccountable you are.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637
You asked,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| posted by reasonwhy Anyone who asks Christophera a question or responds to his cement core is also spamming the thread. |
agreed.
Coming from one who will not reason that's pretty weak after your comment in response to my answers of your questions. You remember, that thread that you started with a title that was a distortion, the banishment session the DI's here got you to start. That I copied and started anew with the title, " Why So Important There Was No Concrete Core?, Selective topics, disinformation of 9-11", where you showed how unaccountable you are.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637
You asked,
"I would like to know how the collapse time would be different for an all-concrete core compared to a steel core.
I explained that concrete can be instantly fractured to fall freely by a relatively small amount explosive cast into it if it is centralized in the concrete.
Then you asked how the 47 steel interior box columns ringing the core out side the core wall were cut.
And I explained that 2 steel plates acting as a corner fill piece, fitting the column tightly with C4 between them, cast in the concrete floor would form a cutting plane that would cut 4 inch steel like a shear. And that is what we see all over the WTC. Interior box columns cut square, reddened from the instant high heat.
Free fall can only happen within a very narrow set of circumstances. Pulverization can only happen in a very narrow set of circumstances. Cutting 4" inch thick steel box columns can only happen in a very narrow set of circumstances, and they all happened.
So you and fox are here trying to enforce a situation where not only do you not accept a building material for the tower core that happens to be the most common on the planet, concrete, but also enables free fall, and total encapsulation of HE for decades preserving it and distributing it, manifesting total pulverization; but you don't want anybody else to show any interest in it or support for it too.
Hmmm, ......... this is fairly transparent.
OUT LOUD AN INSIDE JOB?
David Ray Griffin: Theologian scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories, then looked closer
Reyhan Harmanci
Thursday, March 30, 2006
When David Ray Griffin, noted theologian and professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, first heard someone say that Sept. 11 was an inside job, he scoffed....
...While many conspiracy theories have been passed around, it's been very easy to dismiss many of the theorists as, well, crazy. But Griffin comes to his controversial conclusions with lucidity and calm. He even sees a connection between his long-standing work as a theologian and his new position as a political writer.
"In both cases, the concern is for the good of the world as a whole. Those of us who believe in God believe that trashing the world is not what God wants."
link
David Ray Griffin: Theologian scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories, then looked closer
Reyhan Harmanci
Thursday, March 30, 2006
When David Ray Griffin, noted theologian and professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, first heard someone say that Sept. 11 was an inside job, he scoffed....
...While many conspiracy theories have been passed around, it's been very easy to dismiss many of the theorists as, well, crazy. But Griffin comes to his controversial conclusions with lucidity and calm. He even sees a connection between his long-standing work as a theologian and his new position as a political writer.
"In both cases, the concern is for the good of the world as a whole. Those of us who believe in God believe that trashing the world is not what God wants."
link
QUOTE
by Frater Plecticus
"In both cases, the concern is for the good of the world as a whole. Those of us who believe in God believe that trashing the world is not what God wants."
"In both cases, the concern is for the good of the world as a whole. Those of us who believe in God believe that trashing the world is not what God wants."
Perhaps this helps to explain the 'gulf' between the 'CTers' and the OCT's?
I have noted that the majority of the OCT's reject "religious beliefs" (often bringing up the 'Creationist Cartoon' strawman).
The human psyche is in a very sad state of affairs today... (especially in the materialistic 'western' civilizations).
May the Supreme Being help us all.
The culprits of 9-11 are the principal architects of the "War against terror". Each time they make a wrong turn, or utter a half-truth they are exposing and revealing themselves more. As support for the "War against terror" wanes, their guilt becomes more and more apparent....
Going back a few pages..
I notice this chap never came back to tell us how the dust/debris was formed to begin with, but in any case, take a look at the Southwark Towers demolition at:
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
and explain how the WTC squibs look any different to the ones seen here.
QUOTE
If you look at any video of a WTC tower collapse that shows the alleged "squibs" coming out at various locations ahead of the collapse front, the ejection of dust/debris shows the action of a fluid flow, as in a hose - NOT EXPLOSIVE EJECTION
I notice this chap never came back to tell us how the dust/debris was formed to begin with, but in any case, take a look at the Southwark Towers demolition at:
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
and explain how the WTC squibs look any different to the ones seen here.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Apr 1 2006, 08:43 AM)
The culprits of 9-11 are the principal architects of the "War against terror". Each time they make a wrong turn, or utter a half-truth they are exposing and revealing themselves more. As support for the "War against terror" wanes, their guilt becomes more and more apparent....
AAAYYY...Men
(or as 'others' say)...
Allah Akbar !
AAAYYY...Men
(or as 'others' say)...
Allah Akbar !
Rodriguez was the last survivor pulled from the rubble of the north tower of the WTC, and was responsible for all stairwells within the tower. Rodriguez represented family members of 9/11 victims and testified to the 9/11 Commission that bombs were in the north tower but his statements were completely omitted from the official record.
The US government attempted to sabotage the trip by putting Rodriguez, who has been decorated at the White House itself, and Walter on a no fly list.

Rodriguez and Walter offered their full support for Charlie Sheen's recent public stance on 9/11 and were heartened by his efforts. The potential of a government level inquiry endorsed by Hugo Chavez dovetails with Sheen's call for an independent investigation to be carried out by political foreign nationals.
The US government attempted to sabotage the trip by putting Rodriguez, who has been decorated at the White House itself, and Walter on a no fly list.

Rodriguez and Walter offered their full support for Charlie Sheen's recent public stance on 9/11 and were heartened by his efforts. The potential of a government level inquiry endorsed by Hugo Chavez dovetails with Sheen's call for an independent investigation to be carried out by political foreign nationals.
QUOTE
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.
From the article "Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center" by James Glanz, New York Times, November 29, 2001.
Common Sense compared this claim to horse waste - is there a reason?
CSpam
I said the fireman heard explosive sounds. They just weren't explosives involved.
This just amazes me how he props up the WTC 7 firemen and slams the WTC 1+2 firemen, and wonders about his lack of credibility.
QUOTE
I said the fireman heard explosive sounds. They just weren't explosives involved.
This just amazes me how he props up the WTC 7 firemen and slams the WTC 1+2 firemen, and wonders about his lack of credibility.
Kind of sad how Bush didn't have the guts to face the 911 commission by himself but instead had to have Cheney sitting there with him and holding hands.
Sad too how the White House scheduled Rice's testimony to the 911 commission late afternoon on Holy Thursday when all the reporters and most everyone else had already left DC for the holiday.
Sad too how the White House scheduled Rice's testimony to the 911 commission late afternoon on Holy Thursday when all the reporters and most everyone else had already left DC for the holiday.
Last night I though long and hard about the events of 9/11 a realized that I’d been wrong all along and that the Twin Towers and 7 WTC really did collapse due to use of explosives and thermite, a missile hit the Pentagon and flight 93 was shot down. I was blinded by the propaganda of the PTB/MIC/ZOG. YID, CS, Shagster etc you need to see the light. Foxx, Newton, newtonnjd, brian etc. you guys were right all along!
9/11 conspiracies don’t pass the smell test
By DOUG THOMPSON
Like many Americans, I don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963. Too many things about the Warren Commission report just don't add up and the dinner conversation my wife and I had with former Gov. John B. Connally in 1982 confirms those suspicions.
I also don't believe James Earl Ray acted alone in the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King. I lived and worked in Ray's hometown of Alton, Illinois, for 11 years and interviewed many who knew him. He just wasn't smart enough to pull off such a well-planned execution.
However, I cannot - and will not - join the chorus of those who claim the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were an inside job staged by the Bush administration, the Central Intelligence Agency or anyone else connected with our government. I cannot - and will not - be a party to those who claim the buildings were destroyed not by hijacked airliners but by explosives planted inside the structures.
The conspiracy claims by those who say Osama bin Laden and is rabid band of followers could not possibly have planned and executed the attacks that killed more than 3,000 Americans on that fateful day are, in my opinion, just plain wrong.
I was at the Pentagon the day the plane hit, taking pictures and interviewing witnesses. I talked to the cab driver who saw the plane swoop low over Columbia Pike, knocking down a light pole that fell on his cab. I talked to the driver of the car behind him, an Arlington businessman still haunted by the nightmares of what he saw. I interviewed dozens of others who saw the plane hit. I smelled the burning jet fuel.
Months later, I stood in a lab at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Maryland as an engineer I've known for 25 years ran the computer simulation that shows how the unique construction of the World Trade Center towers contributed to the inevitable collapse after the planes hit.
In July and August of 2003, I watched hours and hours of video and film footage shot by news crews, film students and private citizens in New York on September 11 and edited it into a short documentary for the second anniversary of the attacks. As part of that project, I talked to firemen, police officers and first responders in New York City and then with friends who have worked in the American and foreign intelligence communities for many, many years.
Everything that I've learned from these folks - those who were there and those whose judgment I trust - support the facts that Al Qaeda planned and executed the attacks.
Some say there are no way novice pilots with only a few hours of simulator training could have guided three modern jetliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. I'm a pilot and have flown Boeing 757, 767 and 777 simulators as part of research on stories. The maneuvers made by the hijackers on September 11 were relatively simple course corrections that are not that difficult in planes equipped with modern navigational computers. Some evidence uncovered during the investigations say the hijackers originally wanted to hit the Potomac River side of the Pentagon where Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office is located but that would have required more difficult navigation to miss the Washington Monument.
Others base their beliefs of a conspiracy on the collapse of Building 7 in New York, which did not appear to be seriously damaged. They say video of the collapse suggests it was imploded by an internal explosion. I asked demolition experts and structural engineers to watch video footage from several angles. Thye concluded the collapse was not consistent with a detonated implosion. First responders at the scene also reported large chunks of steel and concrete striking the building. The NIST study, conducted by a Democratic member of their staff, concluded the building was damaged internally.
I'm usually the first to suspect my government of malfeasance. I love a good conspiracy theory as much as Oliver Stone but I cannot buy into this one.
Reasonable doubts about the Kennedy and King deaths exists to this day because of striking conflicts of reports from witnesses on the scene and the existence of credible evidence from experts that refute the "offiical" versions. But the many theories surrounding 9/11 come mostly from conspiracy buffs. I have yet to get a report from a structural engineer or demolitions expert that support the theories of internal explosions and too many witnesses saw the planes. If an engineer or expert with credentials that could be verified came forward I might be willing to take another look at this but in the absence of such, I'll go with the conclusions of experts I trust.
My 40-plus years as a journalist, coupled with too many years working inside the government, tell me that the scenarios laid out by the 9/11 conspiracy buffs just don't pass the smell test.
The 9/11 attacks succeeded because of the incredible improbability that such a ragtag group could pull it off and our lackluster intelligence agencies failed to act on credible reports of terrorist activity. I know my government. They're just not good enough to pull off something like this.
© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/200...ies_dont_p.html
Counterpoint.
Long Live The 9/11 Conspiracy!
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
March 29, 2006
Anyone still care about the heap of disturbing, unsolved questions surrounding Our Great Tragedy?
Here is your must-read for the month. Here is your oh-my-God- I'm-sending-this-piece- to-every-smart-person-I-know hunk of outstanding, distressing, disquieting media bliss.
Here it is: an absolutely exceptional inside scoop on the white-hot world of Sept. 11 conspiracy theories, writ large and smart by Mark Jacobson over at New York magazine, and it's mandatory reading for anyone and everyone who's ever entertained the nagging thought that something — or rather, far more than one something — is deeply wrong with the official line on what actually happened on Sept. 11.
See, it is very likely that you already know that Sept. 11 will go down in the conspiracy history books as a far more sinister affair than, say, the murky swirl of the Kennedy assassination. You probably already know that much of what exactly happened on Sept. 11 remains deeply unsettling and largely unsolved — or to put another way, if you don't know all of this and if you fully and blithely accept the official Sept. 11 story, well, you haven't been paying close enough attention.
But on this, the third anniversary of the launch of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq by way of whoring the tragedy of Sept. 11 for his cronies' appalling gain, what you might not know, what gets so easily forgotten in the mists of time and via the endless repetition of the orthodox Sept. 11 tale, is the sheer volume, the staggering array of unanswered questions about just about every single aspect of Sept. 11 — the planes, the WTC towers, the Pentagon, the fires, the passengers and the cell phone calls and the firefighters and, well, just about everything. It is, when you look closely, all merely a matter of how far down the rabbit hole you are willing to go.
Verily, Jacobson, in his New York mag piece, encounters crackpots and fringe nutballs and those who think Sept. 11 was connected to aliens and electromagnetic fields and the Illuminati. It can, unfortunately, get a little crazy. But there is also a very smart, grounded, intelligent and surprisingly large faction — which includes eyewitnesses, Sept. 11 widows, former generals, pilots, professors, engineers, WTC maintenance workers and many, many more — who point to a rather shocking pile of evidence that says there is simply no way 19 fanatics with box cutters sent by some bearded lunatic in a cave could have pulled off the most perfectly orchestrated air attack of the century. Not without serious help, anyway.
Whose help? This, of course, is the biggest question of all, one which many of the more well-researched theories go a surprisingly long way toward answering.
You have to sift and sort. There are disturbing questions about collapse speeds and controlled demolitions and why the towers fell when the all-steel infrastructure was designed to easily withstand the temperatures of any sort of fire, even burning jet fuel. There are questions of the mysterious, media-documented blasts deep in the WTC towers that took place after the planes hit. There are questions of why there was such a short-selling spree on shares of American Airlines and United Air Lines the day before the attack, huge doubts about the failures of NORAD and the FAA, the bizarre case of the missing plane in the Pentagon crash, and also the downing of Flight 93 where, according to the coroner, no blood or major plane wreckage was actually found. There is, ultimately, the stunning failure of the entire multi-trillion-dollar American air-defense system. Just for starters.
There is also the very big question of what happened to 7 WTC, the only building not hit by anything at all, but which collapsed anyway, in a perfect controlled-demolition sort of way, for no reason anyone can sufficiently explain. But which just so happened to contain vital offices for the IRS, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission and more.
But perhaps Jacobson's article is insufficient for you. Perhaps you have heard much of it before, or you're more of the visceral type and need to actually see the proofs in order to delve deeper, have them laid out like gruesome body parts in a mesmerizing autopsy. Fair enough.
For you, we have the surprisingly compelling indie documentary "9/11 Loose Change" (Google it), freely available on the Internet and produced by three very astute and very young and very strong-willed dudes who managed to cobble together a truly astounding array of proofs and interviews and evidence, a full 1 hour and 20 minutes' worth of mesmerizing footage you will not be able to easily forget.
Or maybe you should peruse one of the countless Sept. 11 conspiracy sites, many of which link to relevant video and one of which — scholarsfor911truth.org — claims to be "a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11." Start there.
Now, it's very true that some of the more specious conspiracy claims have been largely discredited and proved false. Some of the more radical "evidence" gathered by theorists is quite suspect and easily placed in the category of no-way-in-hell. This is valid. This is as it should be. You have to chew through a lot of skin and gristle to get to the real meat.
But oh the meat. The overwhelming quantity, the bloody, deadly stench of it. Fact is, it is quite impossible to watch the entire "Loose Change" documentary and not come away just a little shaken, a little awed by the sheer number of perversely interrelated facts and aberrant coincidences-that-aren't-coincidences, shaking your head at how it all seems to irrefutably prove there is far, far more to the Sept. 11 tragedy than just crazy Osama and his band of zealots, as you begin to sink into a sighing morass of rage and frustration and suspicion and mistrust. You almost can't help it.
Of course, there is another option. There is another way out. You may, as is the standard cultural default, simply ignore it all, scoff and roll your eyes and shrug it all off because it's just too bleak and distasteful to entertain the idea that the dark Sept. 11 thread winds all the way through the NSA and the FBI and the White House and the Project for the New American Century and *** Cheney's mangled soul and God only knows where else.
But then again, no. You have to look. You have to try. Knowledge is power, and while the truth may be spurious and slippery and messy and deep, the pursuit of it is just about the only thing we have left. Give that up, and all that's left is spiritual numbness, emotional stasis and death. So what are you waiting for?
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/great_tragedy.htm
Long Live The 9/11 Conspiracy!
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
March 29, 2006
Anyone still care about the heap of disturbing, unsolved questions surrounding Our Great Tragedy?
Here is your must-read for the month. Here is your oh-my-God- I'm-sending-this-piece- to-every-smart-person-I-know hunk of outstanding, distressing, disquieting media bliss.
Here it is: an absolutely exceptional inside scoop on the white-hot world of Sept. 11 conspiracy theories, writ large and smart by Mark Jacobson over at New York magazine, and it's mandatory reading for anyone and everyone who's ever entertained the nagging thought that something — or rather, far more than one something — is deeply wrong with the official line on what actually happened on Sept. 11.
See, it is very likely that you already know that Sept. 11 will go down in the conspiracy history books as a far more sinister affair than, say, the murky swirl of the Kennedy assassination. You probably already know that much of what exactly happened on Sept. 11 remains deeply unsettling and largely unsolved — or to put another way, if you don't know all of this and if you fully and blithely accept the official Sept. 11 story, well, you haven't been paying close enough attention.
But on this, the third anniversary of the launch of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq by way of whoring the tragedy of Sept. 11 for his cronies' appalling gain, what you might not know, what gets so easily forgotten in the mists of time and via the endless repetition of the orthodox Sept. 11 tale, is the sheer volume, the staggering array of unanswered questions about just about every single aspect of Sept. 11 — the planes, the WTC towers, the Pentagon, the fires, the passengers and the cell phone calls and the firefighters and, well, just about everything. It is, when you look closely, all merely a matter of how far down the rabbit hole you are willing to go.
Verily, Jacobson, in his New York mag piece, encounters crackpots and fringe nutballs and those who think Sept. 11 was connected to aliens and electromagnetic fields and the Illuminati. It can, unfortunately, get a little crazy. But there is also a very smart, grounded, intelligent and surprisingly large faction — which includes eyewitnesses, Sept. 11 widows, former generals, pilots, professors, engineers, WTC maintenance workers and many, many more — who point to a rather shocking pile of evidence that says there is simply no way 19 fanatics with box cutters sent by some bearded lunatic in a cave could have pulled off the most perfectly orchestrated air attack of the century. Not without serious help, anyway.
Whose help? This, of course, is the biggest question of all, one which many of the more well-researched theories go a surprisingly long way toward answering.
You have to sift and sort. There are disturbing questions about collapse speeds and controlled demolitions and why the towers fell when the all-steel infrastructure was designed to easily withstand the temperatures of any sort of fire, even burning jet fuel. There are questions of the mysterious, media-documented blasts deep in the WTC towers that took place after the planes hit. There are questions of why there was such a short-selling spree on shares of American Airlines and United Air Lines the day before the attack, huge doubts about the failures of NORAD and the FAA, the bizarre case of the missing plane in the Pentagon crash, and also the downing of Flight 93 where, according to the coroner, no blood or major plane wreckage was actually found. There is, ultimately, the stunning failure of the entire multi-trillion-dollar American air-defense system. Just for starters.
There is also the very big question of what happened to 7 WTC, the only building not hit by anything at all, but which collapsed anyway, in a perfect controlled-demolition sort of way, for no reason anyone can sufficiently explain. But which just so happened to contain vital offices for the IRS, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission and more.
But perhaps Jacobson's article is insufficient for you. Perhaps you have heard much of it before, or you're more of the visceral type and need to actually see the proofs in order to delve deeper, have them laid out like gruesome body parts in a mesmerizing autopsy. Fair enough.
For you, we have the surprisingly compelling indie documentary "9/11 Loose Change" (Google it), freely available on the Internet and produced by three very astute and very young and very strong-willed dudes who managed to cobble together a truly astounding array of proofs and interviews and evidence, a full 1 hour and 20 minutes' worth of mesmerizing footage you will not be able to easily forget.
Or maybe you should peruse one of the countless Sept. 11 conspiracy sites, many of which link to relevant video and one of which — scholarsfor911truth.org — claims to be "a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11." Start there.
Now, it's very true that some of the more specious conspiracy claims have been largely discredited and proved false. Some of the more radical "evidence" gathered by theorists is quite suspect and easily placed in the category of no-way-in-hell. This is valid. This is as it should be. You have to chew through a lot of skin and gristle to get to the real meat.
But oh the meat. The overwhelming quantity, the bloody, deadly stench of it. Fact is, it is quite impossible to watch the entire "Loose Change" documentary and not come away just a little shaken, a little awed by the sheer number of perversely interrelated facts and aberrant coincidences-that-aren't-coincidences, shaking your head at how it all seems to irrefutably prove there is far, far more to the Sept. 11 tragedy than just crazy Osama and his band of zealots, as you begin to sink into a sighing morass of rage and frustration and suspicion and mistrust. You almost can't help it.
Of course, there is another option. There is another way out. You may, as is the standard cultural default, simply ignore it all, scoff and roll your eyes and shrug it all off because it's just too bleak and distasteful to entertain the idea that the dark Sept. 11 thread winds all the way through the NSA and the FBI and the White House and the Project for the New American Century and *** Cheney's mangled soul and God only knows where else.
But then again, no. You have to look. You have to try. Knowledge is power, and while the truth may be spurious and slippery and messy and deep, the pursuit of it is just about the only thing we have left. Give that up, and all that's left is spiritual numbness, emotional stasis and death. So what are you waiting for?
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/great_tragedy.htm
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 1 2006, 08:35 AM)
Last night I though long and hard about the events of 9/11 a realized that I’d been wrong all along and that the Twin Towers and 7 WTC really did collapse due to use of explosives and thermite, a missile hit the Pentagon and flight 93 was shot down. I was blinded by the propaganda of the PTB/MIC/ZOG. YID, CS, Shagster etc you need to see the light. Foxx, Newton, newtonnjd, brian etc. you guys were right all along!
At this point, maybe we SHOULD stop and think about the possibility. 600 pages is a lot to absorb.
At this point, maybe we SHOULD stop and think about the possibility. 600 pages is a lot to absorb.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 1 2006, 01:35 PM)
Last night I though long and hard about the events of 9/11 a realized that I’d been wrong all along and that the Twin Towers and 7 WTC really did collapse due to use of explosives and thermite, a missile hit the Pentagon and flight 93 was shot down. I was blinded by the propaganda of the PTB/MIC/ZOG. YID, CS, Shagster etc you need to see the light. Foxx, Newton, newtonnjd, brian etc. you guys were right all along!
Len, glad to hear it but perhaps you are being to harsh on your ex fellow OCTs, they may, like yourself, come to see it for what it was after they too have thought long and hard about the events of 9/11
As we, and now you know, - stranger things have happened.
Of course, like NORADs timeline, you may change your story not once but three times so I suppose your eligibility for inclusion in the clown car may have to be put on hold subject to contributions showing your conversion was not just a Damascian rush of blood but was based on a genuine understanding of just how ridiculous the story you have been defending truly is.
Len, glad to hear it but perhaps you are being to harsh on your ex fellow OCTs, they may, like yourself, come to see it for what it was after they too have thought long and hard about the events of 9/11
As we, and now you know, - stranger things have happened.
Of course, like NORADs timeline, you may change your story not once but three times so I suppose your eligibility for inclusion in the clown car may have to be put on hold subject to contributions showing your conversion was not just a Damascian rush of blood but was based on a genuine understanding of just how ridiculous the story you have been defending truly is.
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.
