edit - oh, I get it.. funny
I, like Len, have seen the error of my ways.
I want to thank Christophera for the insight on how C4 could have been put under the Concrete that made up the Core when the towers were constructed.
I want to thank newton for the brilliant deduction that the faster than free fall collapse was due to the huge vacuum created by the exploding C4.
I want to thank metamars for his unflagging defense of the pyroclastic cloud.
I want to thank Foxx for the clear understanding of how tons of thermite could have been easily smuggled into the parking garage and set off with a thermobaric bomb.
I want to thank Brian for proving that brevity is not the soul of wit.
Thanks guys, its like a FOG has been lifted.
Arthur
I want to thank Christophera for the insight on how C4 could have been put under the Concrete that made up the Core when the towers were constructed.
I want to thank newton for the brilliant deduction that the faster than free fall collapse was due to the huge vacuum created by the exploding C4.
I want to thank metamars for his unflagging defense of the pyroclastic cloud.
I want to thank Foxx for the clear understanding of how tons of thermite could have been easily smuggled into the parking garage and set off with a thermobaric bomb.
I want to thank Brian for proving that brevity is not the soul of wit.
Thanks guys, its like a FOG has been lifted.
Arthur
This sudden conversion might have something to do with my advice to Christophera earlier to switch sides if he really supports the truth movement:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=78646
I have to admit his reply is hilarious. I am sure the police officer still remembers the crazy guy with an amplified bullhorn claiming the WTC had a concrete core.
Welcome to the clown car Arthur and Len.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=78646
I have to admit his reply is hilarious. I am sure the police officer still remembers the crazy guy with an amplified bullhorn claiming the WTC had a concrete core.
Welcome to the clown car Arthur and Len.
Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.
That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.
Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center
That core should have resisted the airplane impacts AND the fires. I have said nothing for four and a half years but can remain silent no longer. My belief is that only explosives could have caused WTC 1 & WTC 2 to collapse the way they did on September 11, 2001.
Leslie E. Robertson
Director Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P. and lead engineer of the World Trade Center
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!
I think we all realize what day it is.
In that spirit, it has all become clear to me that Osama is the only evil mastermind with the ability to conceive and pull off the events of 911. I have seen the error of my conpiracist ways working with the forces of darkness to conceal the truth and shift the blame to where it does not belong.
I think we all realize what day it is.
In that spirit, it has all become clear to me that Osama is the only evil mastermind with the ability to conceive and pull off the events of 911. I have seen the error of my conpiracist ways working with the forces of darkness to conceal the truth and shift the blame to where it does not belong.
I also have been wrong, I would like thank Arthur for explaining to me how the wings of 757s fold back along the fuselage when entering small holes in buildings like the Pentagon. Thank You Arthur! I've been such a fool!
I too think there isn't a single soul in government in over 4 years who would come out exposing the greatest mass murder in US history. The NYC fire department got lucky with building 7 when they said it was going to collapse and every single structural engineering journal in the word is covering for the neo-cons.
Damn MIB's and their flashy thingies...
Damn MIB's and their flashy thingies...
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 31 2006, 10:49 PM)
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.
This is just a small cutting charge:
a linear shape charge set to cut the flange off of an I-beam
The I-beam flange was peeled away by linear shape charge. Pitting can be seen on the lower flange from the jet of plasma that cut through the upper flange.
You can find “off the shelf” cutting charges penetrating up to 100 mm on the internet:
.
http://www.appliedexplosives.com.au/indust.htm
CD can easily explain everything that was observed. Your explanation has major problems (Indoor transformers don’t explode and wires are insulated).
Better images of bridge CD:
You can see the flashes and hear the popping sound in this video:
http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.c...aFeAtchison.asf
Good source of movie clips on CD:
http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.com/clips.htm
QUOTE
Amazing twist on logic there, Schneiby-Dooby-Doo. You post a statement from a "Democratic-supporters site" (the author of which makes the bold claim that ... although he doesn't 'buy' the JFK, etc official line... neither does he 'buy' the 9/11 conspiracy spoken about by many 'tin-hatters').
Tell us honestly, CSpam... did you read through the comments from HIS supporters? Although most claim that they agree with him on MOST issues... they certainly DON'T on the 9/11 issue. The man is being drawn & quartered by his own supporters for claiming his belief in the official Fairy Tale conspiracy.
I find it interesting to see that you would post his original statement (ostensibly in support of your own position) --- but completely disregard comments from his 'supporters' who seem overwhelmingly to agree that the poster has lost his mind on this issue.
IF this was a 'poll' - it is easy to see that 90 % of the readers disagree with the official fairy tale... yet, somehow you OCT's keep claiming that the majority of people who have researched the issues are in agreement with YOUR proclaimed 'position' ?
Let's have a look at just some of the comments in response to the article you posted...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by CSpam http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/200...ies_dont_p.html |
Amazing twist on logic there, Schneiby-Dooby-Doo. You post a statement from a "Democratic-supporters site" (the author of which makes the bold claim that ... although he doesn't 'buy' the JFK, etc official line... neither does he 'buy' the 9/11 conspiracy spoken about by many 'tin-hatters').
Tell us honestly, CSpam... did you read through the comments from HIS supporters? Although most claim that they agree with him on MOST issues... they certainly DON'T on the 9/11 issue. The man is being drawn & quartered by his own supporters for claiming his belief in the official Fairy Tale conspiracy.
I find it interesting to see that you would post his original statement (ostensibly in support of your own position) --- but completely disregard comments from his 'supporters' who seem overwhelmingly to agree that the poster has lost his mind on this issue.
IF this was a 'poll' - it is easy to see that 90 % of the readers disagree with the official fairy tale... yet, somehow you OCT's keep claiming that the majority of people who have researched the issues are in agreement with YOUR proclaimed 'position' ?
Let's have a look at just some of the comments in response to the article you posted...
"Doug, I enjoy your insight and webpage. At an emotional level I can't allow myself to believe that my government did it either. It seems most likely they are incompetent, but like many people, I have the sinking feeling that they knew more than they admit and let it happen. It was a big break for their agenda. It is terrible to have such thoughts. I love my country, but have no faith in the people in charge."
Posted by Dave Murray at March 31, 2006
---------------
"There was a time when I would have agreed with you. My head says they aren't smart enough to pull this off. My heart says they aren't corrupt enough to pull this off.
But part of me still isn't certain. There are so many things that led up to 9/11 and then right after 9/11 that don't add up"...
Posted by Cindy at March 31, 2006
-------------------
"I have been behind you 110% on everything you have said up to THIS point"
Posted by Rob at March 31, 2006
----------------
"If I disregard all the dozen upon dozens of coincidences that occured that allowed the events of 9/11 to take place, there is one absolute piece of evidence that cannot be ignored. Why did building 7, untouched by {aircraft} with only a few minor fires...not only collapse, but collapse entirely within its own foundation? Most americans are not even aware that a third tower collapsed that day. Ignore everything else, just explain this one thing to me in a way that does not bend the laws of physics and common sense and I will perhaps begin to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny again".
Posted by Dave Williams at March 31
The above sample responses are the first in a long series of responses to the article YOU posted, and if one goes through the entire list of responses, one will find that the majority do NOT believe the official Fairy Tale.
You ignored these responses when you posted the link CSpam - because they do NOT support your position. But, let's consider what your point WAS in posting this link.
You, (like most of the OCT's who support the fairy tale version of events), were attempting to show Democratic Party support for your position. and chose the Capital Blue site to emphasize this aspect.
This tells us a couple of things.
First - You mistakenly (or deliberately) try to associate the 9/11 physics questions / 'conspiracy theory'... as nothing more than a 'partisan' political attack by opponents of the Republican administration as some kind of slur campaign.
(Nothing could be further from the truth)... 9/11 events have nothing whatsoever to do with US partisan politics. Some of the 'moves' made by military-industrial representatives in the Clinton administration show clearly that this is NOT a partisan (political) issue.
and Secondly - I don't believe (based upon your postings) that you are a "Democrat" anyway.
You are simply trying to turn the 9/11 issues into a political question, in order to obfuscate the physics realities.
Your psyopts mirror those of "the Schneibster"...
- Anyone who disputes your position is a Rove supporter...
- Conspiracy sites are just trying to make money...
- Anal fixations and degenerative responses are worthy responses to attack & insult opponents...
- The confessed use of sock-puppets...
These are all psyopts that are NOT fooling us at all.
As Plato said...
QUOTE
"Some men speak because they have something to say... whereas... other men speak because they HAVE to say SOMETHING
YOU are clearly a poster of the latter group (and as the "Schneibster" would say)... "You have been Pwned"
Why don't you join "ah-t" on the Alaskan home-front?
IDIOT --- you are NOT fooling many here... and those you ARE fooling... are NOT really worth wasting time upon, because after a short visit here, they will return to the boob-tube to vegetate with Springer, Oprah, and Survivor.
Let me make my position perfectly clear to any who are not astute enough to follow my allegations (in the above)....
IMHO... "the Schneibster"... "Adoucette"... "CSpam"...(ETC)...are NOT 'real' persons, but are reflections / mirrors of the psyopts being employed against the exposure of truth, related to 9/11.
Can anyone say......................
'agents with an agenda' ???
QUOTE
I too think there isn't a single soul in government in over 4 years who would come out exposing the greatest mass murder in US history.
Quite right. Given the media brainwashing of the last 4 years it would destroy their career. Unless they had solid proof, which noone outside the B.A. would have access to.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I too think there isn't a single soul in government in over 4 years who would come out exposing the greatest mass murder in US history. |
Quite right. Given the media brainwashing of the last 4 years it would destroy their career. Unless they had solid proof, which noone outside the B.A. would have access to.
The NYC fire department got lucky with building 7 when they said it was going to collapse
Collapse can mean a lot of different things. Partial collapse, or gradual collapse over several hours. I doubt any of them had a clue it would collapse in the STYLE that it did.
QUOTE
and every single structural engineering journal in the word is covering for the neo-cons.
Uh-huh.. and what % of the worlds structural engineering journals have actually conducted an investigation on the WTC? (AND been given full access to resources when doing so)
You're ridiculing a straw man.
QUOTE
Quite right. Given the media brainwashing of the last 4 years it would destroy their career. Unless they had solid proof, which noone outside the B.A. would have access to.
This doesn't match historical events. There have been many people who came out under risk of job loss or even death. Some go to the media and some even go to the media of other countries as did the downing street memo. If someone wants to get the word out they will and have in the past. I know if I knew about something like this my job isn't the only thing I'd worry about. If the government were capable of this then they would be capable of killing me or more importantly my family. No, I will disagree with you passinately on this issue.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quite right. Given the media brainwashing of the last 4 years it would destroy their career. Unless they had solid proof, which noone outside the B.A. would have access to. |
This doesn't match historical events. There have been many people who came out under risk of job loss or even death. Some go to the media and some even go to the media of other countries as did the downing street memo. If someone wants to get the word out they will and have in the past. I know if I knew about something like this my job isn't the only thing I'd worry about. If the government were capable of this then they would be capable of killing me or more importantly my family. No, I will disagree with you passinately on this issue.
Collapse can mean a lot of different things. Partial collapse, or gradual collapse over several hours. I doubt any of them had a clue it would collapse in the STYLE that it did.
And yet none of them today looks back and wants an investigation after seeing the way it fell. Fireman aren't parking their fire trucks on the bridges and tunnels in protest together with the help of the police who ALSO lost people. Again, I just don't agree with you. I just can't believe every single one of them would be fooled so easily while you laymen are SURE the government murdered their fellow workers. It could have been them who died in the towers that day. I also don't think if they thought it was murder that they would worry about their jobs. I don't know if you know NYers like I know them. I grew up in NY. Cops and Fireman are tough people who don't take to much crap. If you found ten out of 100 who would roll over like that I'd be suprized. The fact that you don't have any evidence other than "It doesn't look like a normal building collpase" as if the average person sees these things everyday doesn't help. To be honest, the more I see those CD's the more they DON'T look like CD.
QUOTE
Uh-huh.. and what % of the worlds structural engineering journals have actually conducted an investigation on the WTC? (AND been given full access to resources when doing so)
First of all I believe it's the structural engineers who would produce the paper which said the buildings couldn't have fallen and not the journal. My point is that Jones can't seem to get his paper passed by any of them. Why did he choose an economy journal? Could it be just to say his paper was "Peer reviewed?" You know, if this wasn't out there for so long I would say you're right, but the fact is this has been out there for years and structural engineers still haven't even called for an investigation. This is hardly a straw man. Not even structural engineers from countries that hate us have called the collapses into question. This is telling indeed.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 1 2006, 10:58 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 31 2006, 10:49 PM)
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.
This is just a small cutting charge:
a linear shape charge set to cut the flange off of an I-beam
The I-beam flange was peeled away by linear shape charge. Pitting can be seen on the lower flange from the jet of plasma that cut through the upper flange.
You can find “off the shelf” cutting charges penetrating up to 100 mm on the internet:
.
http://www.appliedexplosives.com.au/indust.htm
CD can easily explain everything that was observed. Your explanation has major problems (Indoor transformers don’t explode and wires are insulated).
Better images of bridge CD:
You can see the flashes and hear the popping sound in this video:
http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.c...aFeAtchison.asf
Good source of movie clips on CD:
http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.com/clips.htm
Thanks, reasonwhy - Great information contained in your post above.
Cheers
Tell us honestly, CSpam... re:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/200...ies_dont_p.html
did you read through the comments from HIS supporters?
Although most claim that they agree with him on MOST issues... they certainly DON'T on the 9/11 issue.
The man is being drawn & quartered by his own supporters for claiming his belief in the official Fairy Tale conspiracy.
Please 'try' to support your earlier contention. Thanks
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/200...ies_dont_p.html
did you read through the comments from HIS supporters?
Although most claim that they agree with him on MOST issues... they certainly DON'T on the 9/11 issue.
The man is being drawn & quartered by his own supporters for claiming his belief in the official Fairy Tale conspiracy.
QUOTE
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/03/911_conspiracy_theories_dont_p.html
IF this was a 'poll' - it is easy to see that 90 % of the readers disagree with the official fairy tale... yet, somehow you OCT's keep claiming that the 'majority' of people who have researched the issues are in agreement with YOUR proclaimed 'position' ?
IF this was a 'poll' - it is easy to see that 90 % of the readers disagree with the official fairy tale... yet, somehow you OCT's keep claiming that the 'majority' of people who have researched the issues are in agreement with YOUR proclaimed 'position' ?
Please 'try' to support your earlier contention. Thanks
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 1 2006, 05:58 PM)
http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.c...aFeAtchison.asf
Good source of movie clips on CD:
http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.com/clips.htm
I disagree, I don't see a flash of orange followed by a red one. I see a typical explosion. What the transformer and other electrical equipment explains is the different flashes of color. One after the other. The video I show of a transformer explosion is more than just explaining the sound of explosions because I don't think the sounds of explosions they heard were transformers anyway. It MAY have been but I'm pretty sure now it was bolts/floors/and other things which sound like explosions. I showed you a video of what a steel bolt off a steel crain sounded like when it snapped off. In that case it also made an explosive sound seconds before collapsing.
CD or not, the acre of concrete floor with steel bolts snapping off would sound like explosions. The floors are going to make sound when they crash into each other. All those computers, lights, windows, you know, average office things being instantly crushed are going to make noise. It's not going to go unnoticed. An explosive sound wouldn't be unreasonable. In fact I would say it would be unreasonable to expect anything less.
Their is also all that new electrical equipment I showed you the building had. They were redundent systems and I heard the electrical equipment was working for most of the building. That means plently of high voltage currect to create arcs for short periods of time.
Good source of movie clips on CD:
http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.com/clips.htm
I disagree, I don't see a flash of orange followed by a red one. I see a typical explosion. What the transformer and other electrical equipment explains is the different flashes of color. One after the other. The video I show of a transformer explosion is more than just explaining the sound of explosions because I don't think the sounds of explosions they heard were transformers anyway. It MAY have been but I'm pretty sure now it was bolts/floors/and other things which sound like explosions. I showed you a video of what a steel bolt off a steel crain sounded like when it snapped off. In that case it also made an explosive sound seconds before collapsing.
CD or not, the acre of concrete floor with steel bolts snapping off would sound like explosions. The floors are going to make sound when they crash into each other. All those computers, lights, windows, you know, average office things being instantly crushed are going to make noise. It's not going to go unnoticed. An explosive sound wouldn't be unreasonable. In fact I would say it would be unreasonable to expect anything less.
Their is also all that new electrical equipment I showed you the building had. They were redundent systems and I heard the electrical equipment was working for most of the building. That means plently of high voltage currect to create arcs for short periods of time.
QUOTE (Foxx+Apr 1 2006, 08:45 PM)
Tell us honestly, CSpam... re:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/200...ies_dont_p.html
did you read through the comments from HIS supporters?
Although most claim that they agree with him on MOST issues... they certainly DON'T on the 9/11 issue.
The man is being drawn & quartered by his own supporters for claiming his belief in the official Fairy Tale conspiracy.
Please 'try' to support your earlier contention. Thanks
You are back on "Ignore mode". Your insults are tiring, childish, boring and old. When you grow up I might reply to your mumblings but don't count on it.
This is the best the CDers have to offer? Sad...
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/200...ies_dont_p.html
did you read through the comments from HIS supporters?
Although most claim that they agree with him on MOST issues... they certainly DON'T on the 9/11 issue.
The man is being drawn & quartered by his own supporters for claiming his belief in the official Fairy Tale conspiracy.
QUOTE
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/200...ies_dont_p.html
IF this was a 'poll' - it is easy to see that 90 % of the readers disagree with the official fairy tale... yet, somehow you OCT's keep claiming that the 'majority' of people who have researched the issues are in agreement with YOUR proclaimed 'position' ?
IF this was a 'poll' - it is easy to see that 90 % of the readers disagree with the official fairy tale... yet, somehow you OCT's keep claiming that the 'majority' of people who have researched the issues are in agreement with YOUR proclaimed 'position' ?
Please 'try' to support your earlier contention. Thanks
You are back on "Ignore mode". Your insults are tiring, childish, boring and old. When you grow up I might reply to your mumblings but don't count on it.
This is the best the CDers have to offer? Sad...
QUOTE
I know if I knew about something like this my job isn't the only thing I'd worry about. If the government were capable of this then they would be capable of killing me or more importantly my family. No, I will disagree with you passinately on this issue.
Umm, surely worrying about the safety of your family is another reason to stay silent?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I know if I knew about something like this my job isn't the only thing I'd worry about. If the government were capable of this then they would be capable of killing me or more importantly my family. No, I will disagree with you passinately on this issue. |
Umm, surely worrying about the safety of your family is another reason to stay silent?
And yet none of them today looks back and wants an investigation after seeing the way it fell. Fireman aren't parking their fire trucks on the bridges and tunnels in protest together with the help of the police who ALSO lost people.
Probably because they're TOO close to it. It was a painful experience and they just want to put it behind them.
QUOTE
The fact that you don't have any evidence other than "It doesn't look like a normal building collpase"
That would be YOUR OPINION of the evidence we have. In actual fact the evidence is that the collapses replicated the MEASURABLE physical characteristics of CDs from (supposedly) completely different input parameters.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fact that you don't have any evidence other than "It doesn't look like a normal building collpase" |
That would be YOUR OPINION of the evidence we have. In actual fact the evidence is that the collapses replicated the MEASURABLE physical characteristics of CDs from (supposedly) completely different input parameters.
To be honest, the more I see those CD's the more they DON'T look like CD.
Damn straight, WTC7 was a far higher quality demolition than those little guys.
(Seriously, what are these differences you are only now starting to spot?)
QUOTE
First of all I believe it's the structural engineers who would produce the paper which said the buildings couldn't have fallen and not the journal. My point is that Jones can't seem to get his paper passed by any of them. Why did he choose an economy journal? Could it be just to say his paper was "Peer reviewed?" You know, if this wasn't out there for so long I would say you're right, but the fact is this has been out there for years and structural engineers still haven't even called for an investigation. This is hardly a straw man. Not even structural engineers from countries that hate us have called the collapses into question. This is telling indeed.
Look, I've already admitted that the lack of structural engineers on board is a concern. But it is not PROOF you are right. We have no idea how much the average structural engineer has even thought about 9/11. Even countries that don't like the US have been effectively brainwashed by the "war on terror" nonsense. And how exactly would you KNOW that structural engineers in other countries haven't questioned the collapses? It's hardly likely to be newsworthy in countries like France where something like 80% (can't recall the exact figure) think the US gov was behind it anyway.
The silence from structural engineers also means that none of them are standing up and defending the OCT in light of the recent attention 9/11 truth has been getting. The silence doesn't work 100% in your favour. If the CD hypothesis is so ridiculous, wouldn't you expect some of these structural engineers to want to stand up and put these theories to bed? Where are the structural engineers weighing in to defend the OCT on forums, blogs etc? Perhaps the independent ones, not constricted by their employers official stance, don't feel 100% confident argueing against CD and so stay silent instead.
"Error is easy, the truth is hard."
reasonwhy -- Thanks for the post on explosives. This is new data and caused me to go web trawling for more. I found Implosion World which offers news about controlled demolitions in the US and elsewhere. There is also a review of Byles's book, "Rubble". I also found on firehouse.com a column by Brannigan called "Know your Enemy #12". This is slightly relevant in that there is a story of an apartment house under construction which caught fire. The fire chief elected not to try to save it -- too dangerous for the firemen. So it eventually had to be destroyed. Quoting the fire chief, "It took the explosive demolition contractor a week to develop a plan of how to safely place the explosives." ...and we have previously seen here of posts regarding just how long it takes the controlled demolition guys to wire a building...
But most telling, I found Explosives Science which carefully describes how even the most stable chemical explosives are sensitive to heat. Another site reminds us that chemical explosives will explode from sufficient mechanical shock. But I found the heat amazingly modest: about 500K suffices for even the most stable, 400K for RDX. So please devise a plausible scenario in which (1) the fires didn't set off some of the charges and (2) the firecrews standing 9 blocks north waiting for the building to collapse neither heard nor saw explosions or squibs.
Finally, if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, they did a rather poor job: from the FEMA report, which is where I obtained the detailed timing in my previous post, stated that while most of the debris (outside the footprint) fell west and south, 20 W Broadway to the north was significantly damaged, 101 Barclay to the north was damaged and 90 Church to the east was also damaged. I think I have seen a visual of 20 W Broadway and imho 'significant damage' is an understatement.
I would really appreciate it if one (or more) of you would click on your 'My Assistant' button in the upper right hand part of the page. Then click on the 'Moderators' button. On the resulting displayed page the first section lists 'Administrators'. You should be able to send them an email explaining my plight --- I can 'log-in' but then I have no permission to post (or send an e-mail to an administrator).
Thanks!
reasonwhy -- Thanks for the post on explosives. This is new data and caused me to go web trawling for more. I found Implosion World which offers news about controlled demolitions in the US and elsewhere. There is also a review of Byles's book, "Rubble". I also found on firehouse.com a column by Brannigan called "Know your Enemy #12". This is slightly relevant in that there is a story of an apartment house under construction which caught fire. The fire chief elected not to try to save it -- too dangerous for the firemen. So it eventually had to be destroyed. Quoting the fire chief, "It took the explosive demolition contractor a week to develop a plan of how to safely place the explosives." ...and we have previously seen here of posts regarding just how long it takes the controlled demolition guys to wire a building...
But most telling, I found Explosives Science which carefully describes how even the most stable chemical explosives are sensitive to heat. Another site reminds us that chemical explosives will explode from sufficient mechanical shock. But I found the heat amazingly modest: about 500K suffices for even the most stable, 400K for RDX. So please devise a plausible scenario in which (1) the fires didn't set off some of the charges and (2) the firecrews standing 9 blocks north waiting for the building to collapse neither heard nor saw explosions or squibs.
Finally, if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, they did a rather poor job: from the FEMA report, which is where I obtained the detailed timing in my previous post, stated that while most of the debris (outside the footprint) fell west and south, 20 W Broadway to the north was significantly damaged, 101 Barclay to the north was damaged and 90 Church to the east was also damaged. I think I have seen a visual of 20 W Broadway and imho 'significant damage' is an understatement.
I would really appreciate it if one (or more) of you would click on your 'My Assistant' button in the upper right hand part of the page. Then click on the 'Moderators' button. On the resulting displayed page the first section lists 'Administrators'. You should be able to send them an email explaining my plight --- I can 'log-in' but then I have no permission to post (or send an e-mail to an administrator).
Thanks!
QUOTE
Umm, surely worrying about the safety of your family is another reason to stay silent?
Not really, there are many ways to speak out without anyone knowing even who you are. You aren't saying they can't find ONE reporter who would keep their name silent are you?
But ther reality is if it were my family I would rather them die trying to uncover this than die in the next government catastiphy. It would be for my childrens futrue that I would speak out. What kind of world would I be giving them if I didn't? Hardly one worth living in...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Umm, surely worrying about the safety of your family is another reason to stay silent? |
Not really, there are many ways to speak out without anyone knowing even who you are. You aren't saying they can't find ONE reporter who would keep their name silent are you?
But ther reality is if it were my family I would rather them die trying to uncover this than die in the next government catastiphy. It would be for my childrens futrue that I would speak out. What kind of world would I be giving them if I didn't? Hardly one worth living in...
Probably because they're TOO close to it. It was a painful experience and they just want to put it behind them.
Forgive me but this sounds like rationalizing. Are you saying the fireman would risk dying in the next time the government wanted to invade another country or take away freedoms? I just can't see that...
QUOTE
That would be YOUR OPINION of the evidence we have. In actual fact the evidence is that the collapses replicated the MEASURABLE physical characteristics of CDs from (supposedly) completely different input parameters.
Until you have a peer reviewed paper by a structural/civil engineering journal which says it could ONLY be CD then CD is just one in a million other possibilities which you have no evidence for. As I sad, why would you expect a different result if the fires/building impact/penthouse collapse created the same effect as a CD in the end? Yet there are other things which make it look less like a CD like the buildings kink on the way down which just happenes to be where the penthouse was and where the fires were seen coming out the east side. If it WAS CD it was some luck to have all the evidence point to the fires. As if the last thing the building did was point to the fire. "This did it... *GASP*"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That would be YOUR OPINION of the evidence we have. In actual fact the evidence is that the collapses replicated the MEASURABLE physical characteristics of CDs from (supposedly) completely different input parameters. |
Until you have a peer reviewed paper by a structural/civil engineering journal which says it could ONLY be CD then CD is just one in a million other possibilities which you have no evidence for. As I sad, why would you expect a different result if the fires/building impact/penthouse collapse created the same effect as a CD in the end? Yet there are other things which make it look less like a CD like the buildings kink on the way down which just happenes to be where the penthouse was and where the fires were seen coming out the east side. If it WAS CD it was some luck to have all the evidence point to the fires. As if the last thing the building did was point to the fire. "This did it... *GASP*"
Damn straight, WTC7 was a far higher quality demolition than those little guys.
(Seriously, what are these differences you are only now starting to spot?)
Read highlighted text
QUOTE
Look, I've already admitted that the lack of structural engineers on board is a concern. But it is not PROOF you are right.
I never said it was. I only said it was another indication to me. I just can't figure out why if you say it's so obvious.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Look, I've already admitted that the lack of structural engineers on board is a concern. But it is not PROOF you are right. |
I never said it was. I only said it was another indication to me. I just can't figure out why if you say it's so obvious.
It's hardly likely to be newsworthy in countries like France where something like 80% (can't recall the exact figure) think the US gov was behind it anyway.
Why haven't the structural engineers in france passed a peer reviewed paper?
QUOTE
The silence doesn't work 100% in your favour
I never said it did.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The silence doesn't work 100% in your favour |
I never said it did.
If the CD hypothesis is so ridiculous, wouldn't you expect some of these structural engineers to want to stand up and put these theories to bed?
And they have. Not only from the same university Jones teaches at but others who have passed peer reviewed papers saying the building COULD collapse from impact/fire. But conspiracy people continue to invent new reasons they are wrong. It becames a circle jerk as engineers and the designers themselves come out to explain the collapse and CTers disect every word to take them out of context and use it against them. It's easy to take peoples quotes out of context.
QUOTE
"...the lack of structural engineers on board is a concern."
I just said you have a problem with the CD conspiracy theory. That's how easy it is. Just ask Faux how easy it is to take quotes out of context. That's his specialty.
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Apr 1 2006, 09:33 PM)
I would really appreciate it if one (or more) of you would click on your 'My Assistant' button in the upper right hand part of the page. Then click on the 'Moderators' button. On the resulting displayed page the first section lists 'Administrators'. You should be able to send them an email explaining my plight --- I can 'log-in' but then I have no permission to post (or send an e-mail to an administrator).
Thanks!
Done
Thanks!
Done
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 02:03 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Apr 1 2006, 08:45 PM)
Tell us honestly, CSpam... re:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/200...ies_dont_p.html
did you read through the comments from HIS supporters?
Although most claim that they agree with him on MOST issues... they certainly DON'T on the 9/11 issue.
The man is being drawn & quartered by his own supporters for claiming his belief in the official Fairy Tale conspiracy.
Please 'try' to support your earlier contention. Thanks
You are back on "Ignore mode". Your insults are tiring, childish, boring and old. When you grow up I might reply to your mumblings but don't count on it.
This is the best the CDers have to offer? Sad...
That's a fake CT'er.
A real CT'er posts evidence that trashes the official structure lie and shows the true steel reinforced concrete core, just for a start in basic physics.
and then the DI's have to start with the insignificant jam.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/200...ies_dont_p.html
did you read through the comments from HIS supporters?
Although most claim that they agree with him on MOST issues... they certainly DON'T on the 9/11 issue.
The man is being drawn & quartered by his own supporters for claiming his belief in the official Fairy Tale conspiracy.
QUOTE
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/200...ies_dont_p.html
IF this was a 'poll' - it is easy to see that 90 % of the readers disagree with the official fairy tale... yet, somehow you OCT's keep claiming that the 'majority' of people who have researched the issues are in agreement with YOUR proclaimed 'position' ?
IF this was a 'poll' - it is easy to see that 90 % of the readers disagree with the official fairy tale... yet, somehow you OCT's keep claiming that the 'majority' of people who have researched the issues are in agreement with YOUR proclaimed 'position' ?
Please 'try' to support your earlier contention. Thanks
You are back on "Ignore mode". Your insults are tiring, childish, boring and old. When you grow up I might reply to your mumblings but don't count on it.
This is the best the CDers have to offer? Sad...
That's a fake CT'er.
A real CT'er posts evidence that trashes the official structure lie and shows the true steel reinforced concrete core, just for a start in basic physics.
and then the DI's have to start with the insignificant jam.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 30 2006, 03:24 AM)
NIST working Hypothesis for WTC 7:
It is interesting that as of 2004 you have to take Disproportionate Collapse into design consideration in the UK:
It is interesting that as of 2004 you have to take Disproportionate Collapse into design consideration in the UK:
The guidance provided is in accordance with the recently amended Building Regulations and the Approved Document A (2004 edition) which means that disproportionate Collapse must be considered in the design of all buildings.
Who should attend:
This course is aimed at practising engineers who need a general introduction or update on robustness and the issues which need to be considered when designing to avoid disproportionate collapse.
http://www.steel-sci.org/Courses/crsedesc/p00_50.htm
Emphasis mine.
NIST should get their eyes checked. The video of columns being explosively clipped around the corner is prima fascie evidence of CD.
The only way that NIST could not be lying is if they averted their eyes to the evidence that you and I can see with our own eyes. But is it really possible for a group of engineers to avert their eyes? Don't they have to peek, ever to quickly, and then avert their eyes?
The parsimonious explanation is that they are LYING, pure and simple. At least, whatever bozos were responsible for inserting that verbiage into their report, were lying. Division of labor considerations tell us immediately that not everybody in NIST wrote that lie and/or worked to make sure it was in the final report. (In spite of this last sentence, obvious as it is, you can almost be sure that one of the popes, if they reply to this post, will trot out the usual strawman of not "everybody" at NIST could be "in on it".)
Just for laughs, if anybody has time, they can press the video to a CD and send it off to NIST for their comments.
My prediction: you will never get a reply.
QUOTE
Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7 (pg 6)
If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse, including:
An Initiating Event
An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2
A Vertical Progression at the East Side of the Building
Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse
A Subsequent Horizontal Progression from the East to the West Side
Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure
Disproportionate Global Collapse
Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure
NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.
If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse, including:
An Initiating Event
An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2
A Vertical Progression at the East Side of the Building
Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse
A Subsequent Horizontal Progression from the East to the West Side
Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure
Disproportionate Global Collapse
Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure
NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.
It is interesting that as of 2004 you have to take Disproportionate Collapse into design consideration in the UK:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7 (pg 6) If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse, including: An Initiating Event An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2 A Vertical Progression at the East Side of the Building Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse A Subsequent Horizontal Progression from the East to the West Side Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure Disproportionate Global Collapse Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition. |
It is interesting that as of 2004 you have to take Disproportionate Collapse into design consideration in the UK:
The guidance provided is in accordance with the recently amended Building Regulations and the Approved Document A (2004 edition) which means that disproportionate Collapse must be considered in the design of all buildings.
Who should attend:
This course is aimed at practising engineers who need a general introduction or update on robustness and the issues which need to be considered when designing to avoid disproportionate collapse.
http://www.steel-sci.org/Courses/crsedesc/p00_50.htm
Emphasis mine.
NIST should get their eyes checked. The video of columns being explosively clipped around the corner is prima fascie evidence of CD.
The only way that NIST could not be lying is if they averted their eyes to the evidence that you and I can see with our own eyes. But is it really possible for a group of engineers to avert their eyes? Don't they have to peek, ever to quickly, and then avert their eyes?
The parsimonious explanation is that they are LYING, pure and simple. At least, whatever bozos were responsible for inserting that verbiage into their report, were lying. Division of labor considerations tell us immediately that not everybody in NIST wrote that lie and/or worked to make sure it was in the final report. (In spite of this last sentence, obvious as it is, you can almost be sure that one of the popes, if they reply to this post, will trot out the usual strawman of not "everybody" at NIST could be "in on it".)
Just for laughs, if anybody has time, they can press the video to a CD and send it off to NIST for their comments.
My prediction: you will never get a reply.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 1 2006, 07:30 AM)
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.
Do I really have to provide the punch-line here.
APRIL FOOLS
I agree ,this definately rules out doing all the preperation on 9/11.
I agree ,this definately rules out doing all the preperation on 9/11.
But most telling, I found Explosives Science which carefully describes how even the most stable chemical explosives are sensitive to heat. Another site reminds us that chemical explosives will explode from sufficient mechanical shock. But I found the heat amazingly modest: about 500K suffices for even the most stable, 400K for RDX. So please devise a plausible scenario in which (1) the fires didn't set off some of the charges and (2) the firecrews standing 9 blocks north waiting for the building to collapse neither heard nor saw explosions or squibs.
(1) You are assuming there were large fires. The photographic evidence simple does not support this. I assume the reason for the lack of fires is that it would have caused problems with the already placed explosives. It would have been much easier to explain the collapse with large fires breaking glass and shooting out the windows on all floors.
(2)You are comparing apples to oranges when you say the fire fighters did not see squibs or hear explosions. During normal building CDs, the windows are removed so the sound is louder and they are not worried about what it looks like to the public.
After looking at videos of CD's , this has to be one of the best controlled demolitions. Please show a picture of a smaller footprint related to height then WTC7.
So I am being rhetorical in asking what a collapse is supposed to sound like when others are stating that explosive sounds were occuring at the time? I may not have heard a 150' yacht hit a submerged rock but I have hearnd a 22 foot powerboat hit one. Sickening, boom and crunch. Both sounds , 22 foot powerboat and 150' yacht hitting a submerged rock are somewhat irrelevant though.
Fact is that I believe that several tens of thousands of Kg of mass falling and hitting another large object would make a very low frequency, high amplitude noise very reminisent of a bomb. I also know from first hand observation that buildings experiencing load shifts make booming noises. Was your father ever in Alert, N.W.T.? Ever experience 65 mph winds and what it sounds like in the barracks building? Besides my own house making such disconcerting noises I experienced the above. Very loud booming that if it wasn't continuous would sound like an explosion, it made talking to each other difficult since you had to speak above the roar. When the double doors on one side blew in it DID sound like an explosion. When this happened while I was there only one person thought "bomb" though since this was a building that did not have a history of being bombed. That person was an infantry soldier to whom such a sound immediatly means 'explosion'.
So, when I ask what it is supposed to sound like what I am getting at, as if you could not have figured it out on your own, is that you and others presuppose 'explosion' without bothering to think about what a gravity driven collapse would sound like or what sounds the damaged building would be making as loads shifted prior to collapse. You can also add to that, the loud "thump" that each person who jumped to escape the small inconsequential fires you claim were occuring, hit the ground.
Not in any video I have seen. care to post one, Christophera.
newton, feel free to show a video in which it is shown conclusively that large debris was thrown upwards. I am not interested in stills, I am not interested in dust plumes, I want it shown that something of substance went not horizontal but upwards WHEN it was ejected from the collapsing tower.
<< cue Final Jeopardy music >>
If you search the thread for a post of mine where I described the "fireworks", not only are there upwardly arcing ejecta, but the "fireworks" I referred to was going up, almost vertically. I probably posted a reference to the video, though I really don't remember.
This is just the sort of evidence that cries out for expert evaluation. There are similarities to the "streamers" cause by nukes, as described by our Finnish military friend, but less exotic hypotheses should be evaluated by those with relevant expertise.
metamars, that is the very same video I just posted a link to.
The "fireworks" you refer to next to the 'spire' is another column falling away. It never moves in an upward trajectory. Once again I state that in that video nothing ever moves in an upward trajectory.
You might also notice that some of the debris/dust actually moves backwards as it first is ejected from the towers and then is drawn back by the down draft of the collapsing building. Watch just after the beginning of that clip and you will see what I refer to.
I suppose you will now tell me that this is proof of a space based beam weapon being used.
What is the link?
From my post on page 613 of this thread (March 29)
Not in any video I have seen. care to post one, Christophera.
newton, feel free to show a video in which it is shown conclusively that large debris was thrown upwards. I am not interested in stills, I am not interested in dust plumes, I want it shown that something of substance went not horizontal but upwards WHEN it was ejected from the collapsing tower.
<< cue Final Jeopardy music >>
If you search the thread for a post of mine where I described the "fireworks", not only are there upwardly arcing ejecta, but the "fireworks" I referred to was going up, almost vertically. I probably posted a reference to the video, though I really don't remember.
This is just the sort of evidence that cries out for expert evaluation. There are similarities to the "streamers" cause by nukes, as described by our Finnish military friend, but less exotic hypotheses should be evaluated by those with relevant expertise.
metamars, that is the very same video I just posted a link to.
The "fireworks" you refer to next to the 'spire' is another column falling away. It never moves in an upward trajectory. Once again I state that in that video nothing ever moves in an upward trajectory.
You might also notice that some of the debris/dust actually moves backwards as it first is ejected from the towers and then is drawn back by the down draft of the collapsing building. Watch just after the beginning of that clip and you will see what I refer to.
I suppose you will now tell me that this is proof of a space based beam weapon being used.
What is the link?
From my post on page 613 of this thread (March 29)
Watch this video of the north tower. It is also very obvious in this video of the south tower.
Nothing goes up.
First link is a different link, but the same video
I frankly didn't believe that these were the same videos, so I searched for my original post. It was on p. 328.
After viewing the video again, a few times, I have to retract my claim re the specific thing that I identified as "fireworks". Apparently, I was fooled by the illusion created by the decent of the top of the ejecta/powder.
At this point, maybe we SHOULD stop and think about the possibility. 600 pages is a lot to absorb.
Do I really have to provide the punch-line here.
APRIL FOOLS
QUOTE
reasonwhy -- Thanks for the post on explosives. This is new data and caused me to go web trawling for more. I found Implosion World which offers news about controlled demolitions in the US and elsewhere. There is also a review of Byles's book, "Rubble". I also found on firehouse.com a column by Brannigan called "Know your Enemy #12". This is slightly relevant in that there is a story of an apartment house under construction which caught fire. The fire chief elected not to try to save it -- too dangerous for the firemen. So it eventually had to be destroyed. Quoting the fire chief, "It took the explosive demolition contractor a week to develop a plan of how to safely place the explosives." ...and we have previously seen here of posts regarding just how long it takes the controlled demolition guys to wire a building...
I agree ,this definately rules out doing all the preperation on 9/11.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| reasonwhy -- Thanks for the post on explosives. This is new data and caused me to go web trawling for more. I found Implosion World which offers news about controlled demolitions in the US and elsewhere. There is also a review of Byles's book, "Rubble". I also found on firehouse.com a column by Brannigan called "Know your Enemy #12". This is slightly relevant in that there is a story of an apartment house under construction which caught fire. The fire chief elected not to try to save it -- too dangerous for the firemen. So it eventually had to be destroyed. Quoting the fire chief, "It took the explosive demolition contractor a week to develop a plan of how to safely place the explosives." ...and we have previously seen here of posts regarding just how long it takes the controlled demolition guys to wire a building... |
I agree ,this definately rules out doing all the preperation on 9/11.
But most telling, I found Explosives Science which carefully describes how even the most stable chemical explosives are sensitive to heat. Another site reminds us that chemical explosives will explode from sufficient mechanical shock. But I found the heat amazingly modest: about 500K suffices for even the most stable, 400K for RDX. So please devise a plausible scenario in which (1) the fires didn't set off some of the charges and (2) the firecrews standing 9 blocks north waiting for the building to collapse neither heard nor saw explosions or squibs.
(1) You are assuming there were large fires. The photographic evidence simple does not support this. I assume the reason for the lack of fires is that it would have caused problems with the already placed explosives. It would have been much easier to explain the collapse with large fires breaking glass and shooting out the windows on all floors.
(2)You are comparing apples to oranges when you say the fire fighters did not see squibs or hear explosions. During normal building CDs, the windows are removed so the sound is louder and they are not worried about what it looks like to the public.
QUOTE
Finally, if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, they did a rather poor job: from the FEMA report, which is where I obtained the detailed timing in my previous post, stated that while most of the debris (outside the footprint) fell west and south, 20 W Broadway to the north was significantly damaged, 101 Barclay to the north was damaged and 90 Church to the east was also damaged. I think I have seen a visual of 20 W Broadway and imho 'significant damage' is an understatement.
After looking at videos of CD's , this has to be one of the best controlled demolitions. Please show a picture of a smaller footprint related to height then WTC7.
QUOTE
Foxx writes:
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
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
So I am being rhetorical in asking what a collapse is supposed to sound like when others are stating that explosive sounds were occuring at the time? I may not have heard a 150' yacht hit a submerged rock but I have hearnd a 22 foot powerboat hit one. Sickening, boom and crunch. Both sounds , 22 foot powerboat and 150' yacht hitting a submerged rock are somewhat irrelevant though.
Fact is that I believe that several tens of thousands of Kg of mass falling and hitting another large object would make a very low frequency, high amplitude noise very reminisent of a bomb. I also know from first hand observation that buildings experiencing load shifts make booming noises. Was your father ever in Alert, N.W.T.? Ever experience 65 mph winds and what it sounds like in the barracks building? Besides my own house making such disconcerting noises I experienced the above. Very loud booming that if it wasn't continuous would sound like an explosion, it made talking to each other difficult since you had to speak above the roar. When the double doors on one side blew in it DID sound like an explosion. When this happened while I was there only one person thought "bomb" though since this was a building that did not have a history of being bombed. That person was an infantry soldier to whom such a sound immediatly means 'explosion'.
So, when I ask what it is supposed to sound like what I am getting at, as if you could not have figured it out on your own, is that you and others presuppose 'explosion' without bothering to think about what a gravity driven collapse would sound like or what sounds the damaged building would be making as loads shifted prior to collapse. You can also add to that, the loud "thump" that each person who jumped to escape the small inconsequential fires you claim were occuring, hit the ground.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 30 2006, 04:53 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 30 2006, 04:33 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 30 2006, 04:09 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 30 2006, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 11:25 PM)
QUOTE
Clearly there are upward arcing plumes of material.
Not in any video I have seen. care to post one, Christophera.
newton, feel free to show a video in which it is shown conclusively that large debris was thrown upwards. I am not interested in stills, I am not interested in dust plumes, I want it shown that something of substance went not horizontal but upwards WHEN it was ejected from the collapsing tower.
<< cue Final Jeopardy music >>
If you search the thread for a post of mine where I described the "fireworks", not only are there upwardly arcing ejecta, but the "fireworks" I referred to was going up, almost vertically. I probably posted a reference to the video, though I really don't remember.
This is just the sort of evidence that cries out for expert evaluation. There are similarities to the "streamers" cause by nukes, as described by our Finnish military friend, but less exotic hypotheses should be evaluated by those with relevant expertise.
metamars, that is the very same video I just posted a link to.
The "fireworks" you refer to next to the 'spire' is another column falling away. It never moves in an upward trajectory. Once again I state that in that video nothing ever moves in an upward trajectory.
You might also notice that some of the debris/dust actually moves backwards as it first is ejected from the towers and then is drawn back by the down draft of the collapsing building. Watch just after the beginning of that clip and you will see what I refer to.
I suppose you will now tell me that this is proof of a space based beam weapon being used.
What is the link?
From my post on page 613 of this thread (March 29)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Clearly there are upward arcing plumes of material. |
Not in any video I have seen. care to post one, Christophera.
newton, feel free to show a video in which it is shown conclusively that large debris was thrown upwards. I am not interested in stills, I am not interested in dust plumes, I want it shown that something of substance went not horizontal but upwards WHEN it was ejected from the collapsing tower.
<< cue Final Jeopardy music >>
If you search the thread for a post of mine where I described the "fireworks", not only are there upwardly arcing ejecta, but the "fireworks" I referred to was going up, almost vertically. I probably posted a reference to the video, though I really don't remember.
This is just the sort of evidence that cries out for expert evaluation. There are similarities to the "streamers" cause by nukes, as described by our Finnish military friend, but less exotic hypotheses should be evaluated by those with relevant expertise.
metamars, that is the very same video I just posted a link to.
The "fireworks" you refer to next to the 'spire' is another column falling away. It never moves in an upward trajectory. Once again I state that in that video nothing ever moves in an upward trajectory.
You might also notice that some of the debris/dust actually moves backwards as it first is ejected from the towers and then is drawn back by the down draft of the collapsing building. Watch just after the beginning of that clip and you will see what I refer to.
I suppose you will now tell me that this is proof of a space based beam weapon being used.
What is the link?
From my post on page 613 of this thread (March 29)
Watch this video of the north tower. It is also very obvious in this video of the south tower.
Nothing goes up.
First link is a different link, but the same video
I frankly didn't believe that these were the same videos, so I searched for my original post. It was on p. 328.
After viewing the video again, a few times, I have to retract my claim re the specific thing that I identified as "fireworks". Apparently, I was fooled by the illusion created by the decent of the top of the ejecta/powder.
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!
Prepare yourself OF100A-Braz. You know the penalty for such desertion.
No need to reply to this pm, just sit and wait for pick up.
Prepare yourself OF100A-Braz. You know the penalty for such desertion.
No need to reply to this pm, just sit and wait for pick up.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 1 2006, 05:59 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 1 2006, 05:58 PM)
http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.c...aFeAtchison.asf
Good source of movie clips on CD:
http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.com/clips.htm
I disagree, I don't see a flash of orange followed by a red one. I see a typical explosion. What the transformer and other electrical equipment explains is the different flashes of color. One after the other. The video I show of a transformer explosion is more than just explaining the sound of explosions because I don't think the sounds of explosions they heard were transformers anyway. It MAY have been but I'm pretty sure now it was bolts/floors/and other things which sound like explosions. I showed you a video of what a steel bolt off a steel crain sounded like when it snapped off. In that case it also made an explosive sound seconds before collapsing.
CD or not, the acre of concrete floor with steel bolts snapping off would sound like explosions. The floors are going to make sound when they crash into each other. All those computers, lights, windows, you know, average office things being instantly crushed are going to make noise. It's not going to go unnoticed. An explosive sound wouldn't be unreasonable. In fact I would say it would be unreasonable to expect anything less.
Their is also all that new electrical equipment I showed you the building had. They were redundent systems and I heard the electrical equipment was working for most of the building. That means plently of high voltage currect to create arcs for short periods of time.
Imagine my surprise that you are not going to add the information to your web site.
Just for your information the redundant electrical systems works against your theory. The redundancy is for safety and damage control not multiple large arcs. In other words, it is set up to stop what witnesses described.
No, it is set up to reduce transformer failures caused by too much demand on supply thus heating them up. It most certainly was not designed to protect from massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
No, it is set up to reduce transformer failures caused by too much demand on supply thus heating them up. It most certainly was not designed to protect from massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
Transformer failure from heating would be considered damage control along with massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
So how do you think a Circuit Breaker Works?
Hint: The simplest circuit protection device is the fuse.
Hi Yid.
I didn't really expect you to take me up on the 'challenge' to launch into a hundred pages regarding sound-effects related to various 'sounds of explosives'.
You fooled me !
Yeah--- the differences in sounds between a 22' boat and a 150' yacht 'hittin' the rocks is no more relevant than discussing 'whooshing / pinging' sounds relative to a 'collapsing' or 'demo'd building.
Yet....
...I notice you have chosen to persist in pursuing such lines of 'reasoning' (aka - semantics / rhetorics).
OK - I'm not going to spend a hundred pages on this to indulge your sophist pagentry, but will address the above quote, simply so that You can not say that - "I never responded to your nonsense.
My father (a DND firefighter) never worked in Alert Bay.
Sorry... but I don't really care if you live in a mobile home or some shack that 'shakes in the wind' and makes sounds that you interpret as 'explosions'.
Might I suggest you seek alternative accomadation?
IF you wish to explain the differences in sound between a 'gravity-driven collapse' once initiated and a 'controlled demolition'... please feel free to do so.
(I expect they would sound similar) - so... to argue that we can determine the 'difference' based upon the subjective testimony of witnesses describing the sounds would be quite fruitless.
One must consider whether witness testimony regarding 'sounds' matches with visual events, AND the NEAR FREE-FALL collapse times.
It is nonsense and stupidity to try to separate factors and try to refute each factor as a separate occurance. You need to look at the WHOLE situation and base your opinion on the weight of the full evidence.
Personally, I think it is nonsense for you OCT's to try to imply that professional fire-fighters can NOT distinguish between WHAT sounded like a bomb, and WHAT sounded like a transformer (or other electrical) explosion.
And... again...
'electrical explosions' CAN NOT account for the near free fall collapse which can ONLY be accounted for by the instant disintegration of structural strengths and material integrity related to the massive steel reinforcing of the structure.
Please excuse me if I don't waste more time in addressing the 'sounds' relative to the loss of structural integrity of the buildings.
Once the buildings progress past Initial collapse --- sounds can be VERY subjective.
OUR point is the sights & sounds relative to occurances PRIOR to the initiation of 'collapse' which LED to the collapse (and these were NOT part of 'fire' scenarios).
CSpam claimed that these visual 'sparking/bisant' flashes occured near the middle height of the building... This was WELL BELOW the 'fire-zone' so what (theoretically) caused those 'transformers' to 'explode' in an area of the building unaffected by aircraft/fire damages ???
Over to you, darkmasters of semantics...
Good source of movie clips on CD:
http://www.www.dykon-explosivedemolition.com/clips.htm
I disagree, I don't see a flash of orange followed by a red one. I see a typical explosion. What the transformer and other electrical equipment explains is the different flashes of color. One after the other. The video I show of a transformer explosion is more than just explaining the sound of explosions because I don't think the sounds of explosions they heard were transformers anyway. It MAY have been but I'm pretty sure now it was bolts/floors/and other things which sound like explosions. I showed you a video of what a steel bolt off a steel crain sounded like when it snapped off. In that case it also made an explosive sound seconds before collapsing.
CD or not, the acre of concrete floor with steel bolts snapping off would sound like explosions. The floors are going to make sound when they crash into each other. All those computers, lights, windows, you know, average office things being instantly crushed are going to make noise. It's not going to go unnoticed. An explosive sound wouldn't be unreasonable. In fact I would say it would be unreasonable to expect anything less.
Their is also all that new electrical equipment I showed you the building had. They were redundent systems and I heard the electrical equipment was working for most of the building. That means plently of high voltage currect to create arcs for short periods of time.
Imagine my surprise that you are not going to add the information to your web site.
Just for your information the redundant electrical systems works against your theory. The redundancy is for safety and damage control not multiple large arcs. In other words, it is set up to stop what witnesses described.
QUOTE
Just for your information the redundant electrical systems works against your theory. The redundancy is for safety and damage control not multiple large arcs. In other words, it is set up to stop what witnesses described.
No, it is set up to reduce transformer failures caused by too much demand on supply thus heating them up. It most certainly was not designed to protect from massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 1 2006, 09:13 PM)
QUOTE
Just for your information the redundant electrical systems works against your theory. The redundancy is for safety and damage control not multiple large arcs. In other words, it is set up to stop what witnesses described.
No, it is set up to reduce transformer failures caused by too much demand on supply thus heating them up. It most certainly was not designed to protect from massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
Transformer failure from heating would be considered damage control along with massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
So how do you think a Circuit Breaker Works?
Hint: The simplest circuit protection device is the fuse.
QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
So I am being rhetorical in asking what a collapse is supposed to sound like when others are stating that explosive sounds were occuring at the time? I may not have heard a 150' yacht hit a submerged rock but I have hearnd a 22 foot powerboat hit one. Sickening, boom and crunch. Both sounds , 22 foot powerboat and 150' yacht hitting a submerged rock are somewhat irrelevant though.
Fact is that I believe that several tens of thousands of Kg of mass falling and hitting another large object would make a very low frequency, high amplitude noise very reminisent of a bomb. I also know from first hand observation that buildings experiencing load shifts make booming noises. Was your father ever in Alert, N.W.T.? Ever experience 65 mph winds and what it sounds like in the barracks building? Besides my own house making such disconcerting noises I experienced the above. Very loud booming that if it wasn't continuous would sound like an explosion, it made talking to each other difficult since you had to speak above the roar. When the double doors on one side blew in it DID sound like an explosion. When this happened while I was there only one person thought "bomb" though since this was a building that did not have a history of being bombed. That person was an infantry soldier to whom such a sound immediatly means 'explosion'.
So, when I ask what it is supposed to sound like what I am getting at, as if you could not have figured it out on your own, is that you and others presuppose 'explosion' without bothering to think about what a gravity driven collapse would sound like or what sounds the damaged building would be making as loads shifted prior to collapse. You can also add to that, the loud "thump" that each person who jumped to escape the small inconsequential fires you claim were occuring, hit the ground.
So I am being rhetorical in asking what a collapse is supposed to sound like when others are stating that explosive sounds were occuring at the time? I may not have heard a 150' yacht hit a submerged rock but I have hearnd a 22 foot powerboat hit one. Sickening, boom and crunch. Both sounds , 22 foot powerboat and 150' yacht hitting a submerged rock are somewhat irrelevant though.
Fact is that I believe that several tens of thousands of Kg of mass falling and hitting another large object would make a very low frequency, high amplitude noise very reminisent of a bomb. I also know from first hand observation that buildings experiencing load shifts make booming noises. Was your father ever in Alert, N.W.T.? Ever experience 65 mph winds and what it sounds like in the barracks building? Besides my own house making such disconcerting noises I experienced the above. Very loud booming that if it wasn't continuous would sound like an explosion, it made talking to each other difficult since you had to speak above the roar. When the double doors on one side blew in it DID sound like an explosion. When this happened while I was there only one person thought "bomb" though since this was a building that did not have a history of being bombed. That person was an infantry soldier to whom such a sound immediatly means 'explosion'.
So, when I ask what it is supposed to sound like what I am getting at, as if you could not have figured it out on your own, is that you and others presuppose 'explosion' without bothering to think about what a gravity driven collapse would sound like or what sounds the damaged building would be making as loads shifted prior to collapse. You can also add to that, the loud "thump" that each person who jumped to escape the small inconsequential fires you claim were occuring, hit the ground.
Hi Yid.
I didn't really expect you to take me up on the 'challenge' to launch into a hundred pages regarding sound-effects related to various 'sounds of explosives'.
You fooled me !
Yeah--- the differences in sounds between a 22' boat and a 150' yacht 'hittin' the rocks is no more relevant than discussing 'whooshing / pinging' sounds relative to a 'collapsing' or 'demo'd building.
Yet....
...I notice you have chosen to persist in pursuing such lines of 'reasoning' (aka - semantics / rhetorics).
OK - I'm not going to spend a hundred pages on this to indulge your sophist pagentry, but will address the above quote, simply so that You can not say that - "I never responded to your nonsense.
My father (a DND firefighter) never worked in Alert Bay.
Sorry... but I don't really care if you live in a mobile home or some shack that 'shakes in the wind' and makes sounds that you interpret as 'explosions'.
Might I suggest you seek alternative accomadation?
IF you wish to explain the differences in sound between a 'gravity-driven collapse' once initiated and a 'controlled demolition'... please feel free to do so.
(I expect they would sound similar) - so... to argue that we can determine the 'difference' based upon the subjective testimony of witnesses describing the sounds would be quite fruitless.
One must consider whether witness testimony regarding 'sounds' matches with visual events, AND the NEAR FREE-FALL collapse times.
It is nonsense and stupidity to try to separate factors and try to refute each factor as a separate occurance. You need to look at the WHOLE situation and base your opinion on the weight of the full evidence.
Personally, I think it is nonsense for you OCT's to try to imply that professional fire-fighters can NOT distinguish between WHAT sounded like a bomb, and WHAT sounded like a transformer (or other electrical) explosion.
And... again...
'electrical explosions' CAN NOT account for the near free fall collapse which can ONLY be accounted for by the instant disintegration of structural strengths and material integrity related to the massive steel reinforcing of the structure.
Please excuse me if I don't waste more time in addressing the 'sounds' relative to the loss of structural integrity of the buildings.
Once the buildings progress past Initial collapse --- sounds can be VERY subjective.
OUR point is the sights & sounds relative to occurances PRIOR to the initiation of 'collapse' which LED to the collapse (and these were NOT part of 'fire' scenarios).
CSpam claimed that these visual 'sparking/bisant' flashes occured near the middle height of the building... This was WELL BELOW the 'fire-zone' so what (theoretically) caused those 'transformers' to 'explode' in an area of the building unaffected by aircraft/fire damages ???
Over to you, darkmasters of semantics...
Back down the road, I can't see it in the in the rear view mirror anymore; photos of the seemingly transparent WTC towers appeared. It struck me then; that if the photos were legit, one was left to wonder, if the floors above the first mechanical section, had yet been installed. After all, unless subjected to a refraction medium, light travels in straight lines, right? Considering that there were almost 70 horizontal dividers along that vertical length, why didn't the light gradually truncate, above and below, the line off sight. Of course, that conclusion ran counter, to established, bottom up, construction logistics. I could tell by the tone of the reaction, that I was entering pariah territory. I would be placed in an orbit wider than christophers, if I didn't cease and desist at once. Have you no dignity, man? Get hold of yourself, before it's to late!
Driving the conclusion was the preeminent nature of the mech-sectors. Only Newton sensed my line of thought. Like the gifted "point guard" that he is, on this team, he reminded me/us that the tower's are essentially, 3 stacked boxes, sharing 2 reinforced interfaces. I'll add, that contrary to most bio-organism designs, the towers had a spine and an exoskeleton. Those 2 entities solidified, as one, along its' length, only at the base and at the mech-levels. Else were was bone joined by cartilage and connective tissue, so to speak. Floating floors.
Fair question: could the buildings stand; if the core, perimeter and mech-levels were in place but the floors were uninstalled above the 1st mech- level. This line of inquiry has a bearing, IMHO, on the immediate and absolute destruction that we all witnessed. In other words, if the buildings could at least, marginally, stand without the floating floor system in place, why would a pancaking event inside the building, accelerate the destruction of the surrounding vertical structures so quickly? The flimsy 5/8" bolts were mentioned incessantly. OK, then the bolts would instantly shear and very little feed back would be transmitted to the columns as the floor pancaked by. Feed- back, works both ways.
It seems to me, that an explosive mechanism, located in the 2nd mech-level, would be required in order to mushroom-out the core columns which in turn, would push the perimeter columns away from the buildings axial center- line, in all directions. An accelerated snap- off of the perimeter, at the blast level, could explain why those sections were recorded out-pacing the collapse.
If such a device was used, it would explain why the floors pancaked, at what seems to be faster then free fall. They were accelerated downward, by a component of the explosive force.
Also addressed, is the upward plume of the debris cloud, witnessed to be so intense, so early in the collapse. The upward component of the blast would have caused this happened.
Once the core and perimeter columns are forced away from the center-line, the upper section falls into the vortex, continuing what the explosion started.
One last point, before you vanish me, to my own thread. The still standing core appears to be about the height of the 1st mech-level. Right? As the collapse progressed, the integrity of the lateral support in the core at this point was much stronger and it was able to arrest the column failure momentarily. Why the core then fell like a tied bundle of sticks, suddenly untied, is as weird as everything else.
Driving the conclusion was the preeminent nature of the mech-sectors. Only Newton sensed my line of thought. Like the gifted "point guard" that he is, on this team, he reminded me/us that the tower's are essentially, 3 stacked boxes, sharing 2 reinforced interfaces. I'll add, that contrary to most bio-organism designs, the towers had a spine and an exoskeleton. Those 2 entities solidified, as one, along its' length, only at the base and at the mech-levels. Else were was bone joined by cartilage and connective tissue, so to speak. Floating floors.
Fair question: could the buildings stand; if the core, perimeter and mech-levels were in place but the floors were uninstalled above the 1st mech- level. This line of inquiry has a bearing, IMHO, on the immediate and absolute destruction that we all witnessed. In other words, if the buildings could at least, marginally, stand without the floating floor system in place, why would a pancaking event inside the building, accelerate the destruction of the surrounding vertical structures so quickly? The flimsy 5/8" bolts were mentioned incessantly. OK, then the bolts would instantly shear and very little feed back would be transmitted to the columns as the floor pancaked by. Feed- back, works both ways.
It seems to me, that an explosive mechanism, located in the 2nd mech-level, would be required in order to mushroom-out the core columns which in turn, would push the perimeter columns away from the buildings axial center- line, in all directions. An accelerated snap- off of the perimeter, at the blast level, could explain why those sections were recorded out-pacing the collapse.
If such a device was used, it would explain why the floors pancaked, at what seems to be faster then free fall. They were accelerated downward, by a component of the explosive force.
Also addressed, is the upward plume of the debris cloud, witnessed to be so intense, so early in the collapse. The upward component of the blast would have caused this happened.
Once the core and perimeter columns are forced away from the center-line, the upper section falls into the vortex, continuing what the explosion started.
One last point, before you vanish me, to my own thread. The still standing core appears to be about the height of the 1st mech-level. Right? As the collapse progressed, the integrity of the lateral support in the core at this point was much stronger and it was able to arrest the column failure momentarily. Why the core then fell like a tied bundle of sticks, suddenly untied, is as weird as everything else.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 10:48 PM)
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.
Actually, there is a photo of the south side of WTC 7 taken after WTC 1 collapses that shows damage on the southeast side, which is inconsistent with the firefighter testimony. There is also a video that documents more than a "few" fires. The photo is hard to find but it is out there. If you can't find it I will see if I can dig it up.
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Fair Question, Zoctober...
Could the whole building stand ???
Probably NOT...
but... the central core should have been able to STAND apart from the lateral support of the steel-reinforced concrete floors (which provided lateral stability to the perimeter columns related to lateral forces)... to a certain point...
Under the discredited "pancake-collapse" scenario,
...[IMHO] the central core section (based upon the traditional post & beam / "post/lintel" construction) should have remained (at least - parts of it) --- damaged, but NOT destroyed.
Nothing....
(apart from 'explosives' / 'additional energy input' )...
... could have facilitated the disintegration of the structural integrity of central core columns. Even NIST's computer-generated maps show the central core to be virtually unaffected by the 'high temps' necessary to compromize the structural integrity of the structural steel members in this area.
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.
Actually, there is a photo of the south side of WTC 7 taken after WTC 1 collapses that shows damage on the southeast side, which is inconsistent with the firefighter testimony. There is also a video that documents more than a "few" fires. The photo is hard to find but it is out there. If you can't find it I will see if I can dig it up.
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
QUOTE
Originally posted by zoktoberfest
Fair question: could the buildings stand; if the core, perimeter and mech-levels were in place but the floors were uninstalled above the 1st mech- level.
Fair question: could the buildings stand; if the core, perimeter and mech-levels were in place but the floors were uninstalled above the 1st mech- level.
Fair Question, Zoctober...
Could the whole building stand ???
Probably NOT...
but... the central core should have been able to STAND apart from the lateral support of the steel-reinforced concrete floors (which provided lateral stability to the perimeter columns related to lateral forces)... to a certain point...
Under the discredited "pancake-collapse" scenario,
...[IMHO] the central core section (based upon the traditional post & beam / "post/lintel" construction) should have remained (at least - parts of it) --- damaged, but NOT destroyed.
Nothing....
(apart from 'explosives' / 'additional energy input' )...
... could have facilitated the disintegration of the structural integrity of central core columns. Even NIST's computer-generated maps show the central core to be virtually unaffected by the 'high temps' necessary to compromize the structural integrity of the structural steel members in this area.
Actually, the core of the south tower survived the global collapse or at least part of it did and it was more than just a short piece of core perimeter. It's height was at least half the tower height when the last floors reached the ground. There is some video of the core remnant from the southeast side with Deutsche Bank as a reference. There are still pics of it from the north east side. The shadowy figure seen in pics from the west side near Liberty Park is also apparently of the core remnant, although it is more difficult to see it through the dust clouds from the west.
Since the south core was still standing (at least temporarily) at the end of the collapse of the floors, it wasn't the primary cause of the collapse in itself, but something else must have failed, namely the floors and their connections to the core and perimeter columns. That is a pancaking event.
Anyone know of some free space on the web where I can host some short videos of the south core? The videos are about 1 to 2 MB each.
Since the south core was still standing (at least temporarily) at the end of the collapse of the floors, it wasn't the primary cause of the collapse in itself, but something else must have failed, namely the floors and their connections to the core and perimeter columns. That is a pancaking event.
Anyone know of some free space on the web where I can host some short videos of the south core? The videos are about 1 to 2 MB each.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 30 2006, 06:06 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 30 2006, 02:31 AM)
len, perhaps you missed my last post on this subject:
Before pointing out what you perceive as irony, you need to address this. I did NOT start with a pre-determined conclusion. I progressed to my current conclusion gradually, at one stage with each side pulling on me with equal strength. This is completely the opposite situation to the OCTs who have had the same conclusion since day 1.
Accusing me of a pre-determined conclusion is NONSENSE and a completely feeble attempt to shield those who really did have an inbuilt belief and worked backwards from that.
When did I ever say that YOU started with a preconceived notion? I said that the sights that you looked at did.
That you used to believe the OCT proves little how does that line go about "converts make the strongest believers". Many of the neo-cons were progressives in the 60's, does that make their currant beliefs more valid? It shows that you are or were more open minded than most CTists who probably started blaming Bush for planing 9/11 before 2 WTC fell.
How do you know that there aren't people who used to believe the CTs who now reject them: a friend's husband used to believe them but (largely due to my influence) changed his mind, CS says that people told him his site changed their minds. The fact that we didn't change our minds proves little as well, someone who was right to begin with doesn't have to change his mind
The NIST and FEMA reports were gov't sponsored but the NIST panel included outside consultants, most of the ASCE BPS team were independent as were the numerous engineers who wrote various papers and articles and the still more who reviewed them. The fact that not a single qualified expert from anywhere in the world supports your theories should tell you something. You say the collapses violate the laws of physics then all those engineer must be complete idiots because you know more than they do!
BTW - What is your technical background? If you presume to understand the WTC collapses better that all the honest civil engineers who studied them, then it would be interesting to know your qualifications to hold such a belief.
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,
Before pointing out what you perceive as irony, you need to address this. I did NOT start with a pre-determined conclusion. I progressed to my current conclusion gradually, at one stage with each side pulling on me with equal strength. This is completely the opposite situation to the OCTs who have had the same conclusion since day 1.
Accusing me of a pre-determined conclusion is NONSENSE and a completely feeble attempt to shield those who really did have an inbuilt belief and worked backwards from that.
When did I ever say that YOU started with a preconceived notion? I said that the sights that you looked at did.
That you used to believe the OCT proves little how does that line go about "converts make the strongest believers". Many of the neo-cons were progressives in the 60's, does that make their currant beliefs more valid? It shows that you are or were more open minded than most CTists who probably started blaming Bush for planing 9/11 before 2 WTC fell.
How do you know that there aren't people who used to believe the CTs who now reject them: a friend's husband used to believe them but (largely due to my influence) changed his mind, CS says that people told him his site changed their minds. The fact that we didn't change our minds proves little as well, someone who was right to begin with doesn't have to change his mind
The NIST and FEMA reports were gov't sponsored but the NIST panel included outside consultants, most of the ASCE BPS team were independent as were the numerous engineers who wrote various papers and articles and the still more who reviewed them. The fact that not a single qualified expert from anywhere in the world supports your theories should tell you something. You say the collapses violate the laws of physics then all those engineer must be complete idiots because you know more than they do!
BTW - What is your technical background? If you presume to understand the WTC collapses better that all the honest civil engineers who studied them, then it would be interesting to know your qualifications to hold such a belief.
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,
QUOTE
What you guys obviously forget is that I didn't START out believing in CD, so your claim that it was a pre-determined conclusion for me is NONSENSE. And I could PROVE it was nonsense by showing the long discussion I went through where my views gradually changed from thinking CD theories raised some troubling questions to being fully convinced by them. And that transformation took several months.
This is a terribly weak attack when *I* am the one who arrived at a conclusion different from my initial instincts, whereas every single OCT is just bearing out what they've believed from day 1.
If you don't think that the guys at NIST were told "find out how the airplane damage and fires could have done" this and then went away and did that, I think you are being very naive. CD is FAR too radical, politically and morally, to have ever been on the table for a body set up and funded by the government.
This is a terribly weak attack when *I* am the one who arrived at a conclusion different from my initial instincts, whereas every single OCT is just bearing out what they've believed from day 1.
If you don't think that the guys at NIST were told "find out how the airplane damage and fires could have done" this and then went away and did that, I think you are being very naive. CD is FAR too radical, politically and morally, to have ever been on the table for a body set up and funded by the government.
Before pointing out what you perceive as irony, you need to address this. I did NOT start with a pre-determined conclusion. I progressed to my current conclusion gradually, at one stage with each side pulling on me with equal strength. This is completely the opposite situation to the OCTs who have had the same conclusion since day 1.
Accusing me of a pre-determined conclusion is NONSENSE and a completely feeble attempt to shield those who really did have an inbuilt belief and worked backwards from that.
When did I ever say that YOU started with a preconceived notion? I said that the sights that you looked at did.
That you used to believe the OCT proves little how does that line go about "converts make the strongest believers". Many of the neo-cons were progressives in the 60's, does that make their currant beliefs more valid? It shows that you are or were more open minded than most CTists who probably started blaming Bush for planing 9/11 before 2 WTC fell.
How do you know that there aren't people who used to believe the CTs who now reject them: a friend's husband used to believe them but (largely due to my influence) changed his mind, CS says that people told him his site changed their minds. The fact that we didn't change our minds proves little as well, someone who was right to begin with doesn't have to change his mind
The NIST and FEMA reports were gov't sponsored but the NIST panel included outside consultants, most of the ASCE BPS team were independent as were the numerous engineers who wrote various papers and articles and the still more who reviewed them. The fact that not a single qualified expert from anywhere in the world supports your theories should tell you something. You say the collapses violate the laws of physics then all those engineer must be complete idiots because you know more than they do!
BTW - What is your technical background? If you presume to understand the WTC collapses better that all the honest civil engineers who studied them, then it would be interesting to know your qualifications to hold such a belief.
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,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What you guys obviously forget is that I didn't START out believing in CD, so your claim that it was a pre-determined conclusion for me is NONSENSE. And I could PROVE it was nonsense by showing the long discussion I went through where my views gradually changed from thinking CD theories raised some troubling questions to being fully convinced by them. And that transformation took several months. This is a terribly weak attack when *I* am the one who arrived at a conclusion different from my initial instincts, whereas every single OCT is just bearing out what they've believed from day 1. If you don't think that the guys at NIST were told "find out how the airplane damage and fires could have done" this and then went away and did that, I think you are being very naive. CD is FAR too radical, politically and morally, to have ever been on the table for a body set up and funded by the government. |
Before pointing out what you perceive as irony, you need to address this. I did NOT start with a pre-determined conclusion. I progressed to my current conclusion gradually, at one stage with each side pulling on me with equal strength. This is completely the opposite situation to the OCTs who have had the same conclusion since day 1.
Accusing me of a pre-determined conclusion is NONSENSE and a completely feeble attempt to shield those who really did have an inbuilt belief and worked backwards from that.
When did I ever say that YOU started with a preconceived notion? I said that the sights that you looked at did.
That you used to believe the OCT proves little how does that line go about "converts make the strongest believers". Many of the neo-cons were progressives in the 60's, does that make their currant beliefs more valid? It shows that you are or were more open minded than most CTists who probably started blaming Bush for planing 9/11 before 2 WTC fell.
How do you know that there aren't people who used to believe the CTs who now reject them: a friend's husband used to believe them but (largely due to my influence) changed his mind, CS says that people told him his site changed their minds. The fact that we didn't change our minds proves little as well, someone who was right to begin with doesn't have to change his mind
The NIST and FEMA reports were gov't sponsored but the NIST panel included outside consultants, most of the ASCE BPS team were independent as were the numerous engineers who wrote various papers and articles and the still more who reviewed them. The fact that not a single qualified expert from anywhere in the world supports your theories should tell you something. You say the collapses violate the laws of physics then all those engineer must be complete idiots because you know more than they do!
BTW - What is your technical background? If you presume to understand the WTC collapses better that all the honest civil engineers who studied them, then it would be interesting to know your qualifications to hold such a belief.
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,
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 30 2006, 02:31 AM)
len, perhaps you missed my last post on this subject:
Before pointing out what you perceive as irony, you need to address this. I did NOT start with a pre-determined conclusion. I progressed to my current conclusion gradually, at one stage with each side pulling on me with equal strength. This is completely the opposite situation to the OCTs who have had the same conclusion since day 1.
Accusing me of a pre-determined conclusion is NONSENSE and a completely feeble attempt to shield those who really did have an inbuilt belief and worked backwards from that.
When did I ever say that YOU started with a preconceived notion? I said that the sights that you looked at did.
That you used to believe the OCT proves little how does that line go about "converts make the strongest believers". Many of the neo-cons were progressives in the 60's, does that make their currant beliefs more valid? It shows that you are or were more open minded than most CTists who probably started blaming Bush for planing 9/11 before 2 WTC fell.
How do you know that there aren't people who used to believe the CTs who now reject them: a friend's husband used to believe them but (largely due to my influence) changed his mind, CS says that people told him his site changed their minds. The fact that we didn't change our minds proves little as well, someone who was right to begin with doesn't have to change his mind
The NIST and FEMA reports were gov't sponsored but the NIST panel included outside consultants, most of the ASCE BPS team were independent as were the numerous engineers who wrote various papers and articles and the still more who reviewed them. The fact that not a single qualified expert from anywhere in the world supports your theories should tell you something. You say the collapses violate the laws of physics then all those engineer must be complete idiots because you know more than they do!
BTW - What is your technical background? If you presume to understand the WTC collapses better that all the honest civil engineers who studied them, then it would be interesting to know your qualifications to hold such a belief.
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,
Emphasis mine.
As far as I know, the OCT's have not provided a shred of evidence showing that global collapse of WTC 1 & 2 was truly inevitable, much less that it would have only occurred in only a few seconds more than free fall time.
The NIST studies were only up to collapse initiation. I, personally, have never claimed they are incorrect because 1) I haven't studied them and 2) I don't have the technical background to evaluate them, anyway.
I have noted, several times, that I don't believe that even a local collapse was possible, in the WTC scenarios, without "help", but I have never claimed that I knew that to be the case.
As far as theoretical results go, as far as I can tell, Gordon's work is the KING (so far). The final judgement on his paper will depend on engineers, mostly, not physicists and certainly not laymen. Need I add that the silence of civil engineers who never read Gordon's paper does not tell us anything?**
I consider BZ's "elastic dynamic analysis" a bad joke, for reasons I discussed extensively on this thread. The rest of BZ has been dismembered by Gordon (though again, I leave the final judgement of that to engineers.)
I do not consider Greening's paper very useful, or, for that matter, my fellow Scholars for 911 Truth member Professor Judy Wood. I have discussed why on this thread. I'm quite happy that we have a Ph.D. civil engineer on board, but I hope she has collaborated with Gordon to use her expertise in a more convincing way ( I am thinking mostly wrt a civil/construction engineering audience ).
Before pointing out what you perceive as irony, you need to address this. I did NOT start with a pre-determined conclusion. I progressed to my current conclusion gradually, at one stage with each side pulling on me with equal strength. This is completely the opposite situation to the OCTs who have had the same conclusion since day 1.
Accusing me of a pre-determined conclusion is NONSENSE and a completely feeble attempt to shield those who really did have an inbuilt belief and worked backwards from that.
When did I ever say that YOU started with a preconceived notion? I said that the sights that you looked at did.
That you used to believe the OCT proves little how does that line go about "converts make the strongest believers". Many of the neo-cons were progressives in the 60's, does that make their currant beliefs more valid? It shows that you are or were more open minded than most CTists who probably started blaming Bush for planing 9/11 before 2 WTC fell.
How do you know that there aren't people who used to believe the CTs who now reject them: a friend's husband used to believe them but (largely due to my influence) changed his mind, CS says that people told him his site changed their minds. The fact that we didn't change our minds proves little as well, someone who was right to begin with doesn't have to change his mind
The NIST and FEMA reports were gov't sponsored but the NIST panel included outside consultants, most of the ASCE BPS team were independent as were the numerous engineers who wrote various papers and articles and the still more who reviewed them. The fact that not a single qualified expert from anywhere in the world supports your theories should tell you something. You say the collapses violate the laws of physics then all those engineer must be complete idiots because you know more than they do!
BTW - What is your technical background? If you presume to understand the WTC collapses better that all the honest civil engineers who studied them, then it would be interesting to know your qualifications to hold such a belief.
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,
Emphasis mine.
As far as I know, the OCT's have not provided a shred of evidence showing that global collapse of WTC 1 & 2 was truly inevitable, much less that it would have only occurred in only a few seconds more than free fall time.
The NIST studies were only up to collapse initiation. I, personally, have never claimed they are incorrect because 1) I haven't studied them and 2) I don't have the technical background to evaluate them, anyway.
I have noted, several times, that I don't believe that even a local collapse was possible, in the WTC scenarios, without "help", but I have never claimed that I knew that to be the case.
As far as theoretical results go, as far as I can tell, Gordon's work is the KING (so far). The final judgement on his paper will depend on engineers, mostly, not physicists and certainly not laymen. Need I add that the silence of civil engineers who never read Gordon's paper does not tell us anything?**
I consider BZ's "elastic dynamic analysis" a bad joke, for reasons I discussed extensively on this thread. The rest of BZ has been dismembered by Gordon (though again, I leave the final judgement of that to engineers.)
I do not consider Greening's paper very useful, or, for that matter, my fellow Scholars for 911 Truth member Professor Judy Wood. I have discussed why on this thread. I'm quite happy that we have a Ph.D. civil engineer on board, but I hope she has collaborated with Gordon to use her expertise in a more convincing way ( I am thinking mostly wrt a civil/construction engineering audience ).
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.
emphasis mine
Ah-h-h. I seem to remember from another forum that you didn't even know that, in general, disproof of one proposition is not identical with the proof of a contrary one. My guess is that you don't have a clue what a truth table is, and furthermore, haven't thought through the limititations of applying purely mathematical logic to a complicated physics/engineering problem, which is almost invariably messier, even if you did know what a truth table is.
The collapses fit computer and theoretical models.
No, they didn't. Collapse initiation did fit NIST's computer model (or more accurately, the other way around), and Jones has clearly implied that they did so because of fraud.
Maybe Jones is right, and maybe Jones is wrong, wrt NIST's model being fudged. I don't have a huge problem with anybody who gives NIST the benefit of the doubt on the issue of collapse initiation, due to the huge expertise (and manpower) differential. Hopefully, if an when a real investigation is convened, a thorough review of the NIST work will take place.
NIST makes no scientific, non-handwaving claim re global collapse - they certainly haven't even attempted to prove their handwaving, implied claim re "inevitable global collapse".
No, they didn't. Collapse initiation did fit NIST's computer model (or more accurately, the other way around), and Jones has clearly implied that they did so because of fraud.
Maybe Jones is right, and maybe Jones is wrong, wrt NIST's model being fudged. I don't have a huge problem with anybody who gives NIST the benefit of the doubt on the issue of collapse initiation, due to the huge expertise (and manpower) differential. Hopefully, if an when a real investigation is convened, a thorough review of the NIST work will take place.
NIST makes no scientific, non-handwaving claim re global collapse - they certainly haven't even attempted to prove their handwaving, implied claim re "inevitable global collapse".
The Theory of Evolution can't be proven does that make creationism legitimate?
I suppose you mean the theory of evolution by natural selection, as biologists, in general, don't doubt evolution at all, and consider it 100% fact.
You seem to be implying that newtonnjd is claiming that because the OCT'ers have no proof of their claim re global collapse, this makes the CT'ers correct.
I don't think he's implying that at all, and thus your argument is a straw man, even after being charitably interpreted.
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.
For compelling theoretical reasons, of course. (Plus, an experiment, possibly two out of Europe, though I can't remember for sure.)
So what? This has nothing to do with anything. There was no theoretical or experimental evidence, pre 911, that the WTC towers would collapse globally if hit by a plane, fireproofing was shaken loose, etc.
Even after 911, while there may be strong evidence that a local collapse is possible (without CD) - i.e., the NIST report - once again, I've never seen anything convincing that one could consider evidence for the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale re global collapse. (Meanwhile, the evidence for CD is considerable, and in some respects overwhelming, and seems to be getting stronger all the time, as more and more of the photographic evidence becomes available, at least wrt this thread.)
With one exception. And that is, the beams that show essentially no damage, but with bolts that are just "missing". The ends are square, and show no signs of stress (deformation). This is not what I expect from a CD or a FEMA Fairy Tale collapse scenario, but it seems to me to favor the FEMA Fairy Tale more than CD.
Of course, there's always the possibility of fraud.
Thankfully, NIST did a bang up job in keeping hundreds and thousands of these curiously undisturbed beams, which seem like they wouldn't allow the building to withstand a 10 mph wind, much less a plane impact + fires. Thus, we know, thanks to NIST, how many bolts failed, how and why.
NOT
$20 million dollars, and they call our car the "clown" car! (Though I have to admit, I find the phrase "clown car" humorous, and am, in fact, a little fond of it. )
For compelling theoretical reasons, of course. (Plus, an experiment, possibly two out of Europe, though I can't remember for sure.)
So what? This has nothing to do with anything. There was no theoretical or experimental evidence, pre 911, that the WTC towers would collapse globally if hit by a plane, fireproofing was shaken loose, etc.
Even after 911, while there may be strong evidence that a local collapse is possible (without CD) - i.e., the NIST report - once again, I've never seen anything convincing that one could consider evidence for the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale re global collapse. (Meanwhile, the evidence for CD is considerable, and in some respects overwhelming, and seems to be getting stronger all the time, as more and more of the photographic evidence becomes available, at least wrt this thread.)
With one exception. And that is, the beams that show essentially no damage, but with bolts that are just "missing". The ends are square, and show no signs of stress (deformation). This is not what I expect from a CD or a FEMA Fairy Tale collapse scenario, but it seems to me to favor the FEMA Fairy Tale more than CD.
Of course, there's always the possibility of fraud.
Thankfully, NIST did a bang up job in keeping hundreds and thousands of these curiously undisturbed beams, which seem like they wouldn't allow the building to withstand a 10 mph wind, much less a plane impact + fires. Thus, we know, thanks to NIST, how many bolts failed, how and why.
NOT
$20 million dollars, and they call our car the "clown" car! (Though I have to admit, I find the phrase "clown car" humorous, and am, in fact, a little fond of it. )
So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically?
Re "slower": Gordon's paper, on the theoretical side, to show that global collapse WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED, never mind more slowly than was observed. *
Your side will have even less to stand on as time goes by.
As for a definitive FEA, with fire modeling, etc., past the point of collapse initiation: A week ago, I expected that this would not be done in the next few years, at best, and probably never. However, the recent news that Hugo Chavez is supporting a serious, international, investigation may well be the BEST news for 911 truth, EVER.
The reason is that Venezuela has oil $$, so for them to pony up $20 million for a FEA study, +, is just chump change.
Since you're a sincere seeker of the truth, you doubtless would welcome such an event. Am I correct, here, or not? (Yes, I am being facetious, but go ahead and answer the question.)
* Re "asymmetric/symmetric" : common sense - which is why I urge activists to take pictures of the collapses and show them to Ph.D. civil/construction engineers. It's conceivable that I'm wrong about "symmetric" wrt a collapse that is not severely asymmetric to begin with, which was the case with one of the towers.
Re. WTC 7: this was so perfectly symmetrical, that my intuition clearly suggests CD, and the official Fairy Tales are particularly ludicrous. I welcome the structural engineering community to weigh in on the issue, even if with only their intuition (for starters).
Speaking of which: Is there a single structural engineer in the entire world who has said that they are just fine with the Fairy Tale version of the collapse of WTC 7?
** I don't think the paper is even publicly available, yet, or I imagine I would have read about that fact, here.
No, it is set up to reduce transformer failures caused by too much demand on supply thus heating them up. It most certainly was not designed to protect from massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
Transformer failure from heating would be considered damage control along with massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
So how do you think a Circuit Breaker Works?
Hint: The simplest circuit protection device is the fuse.
You only need to cause a flash. Why do you ignore this? A flash can occure well within the time the circuit trips completely. This happens all ther time in powerline falures. How do you explain why powerlines flash even though they have breakers? Or are there no protections built into powerlines?
QUOTE
What you guys obviously forget is that I didn't START out believing in CD, so your claim that it was a pre-determined conclusion for me is NONSENSE. And I could PROVE it was nonsense by showing the long discussion I went through where my views gradually changed from thinking CD theories raised some troubling questions to being fully convinced by them. And that transformation took several months.
This is a terribly weak attack when *I* am the one who arrived at a conclusion different from my initial instincts, whereas every single OCT is just bearing out what they've believed from day 1.
If you don't think that the guys at NIST were told "find out how the airplane damage and fires could have done" this and then went away and did that, I think you are being very naive. CD is FAR too radical, politically and morally, to have ever been on the table for a body set up and funded by the government.
This is a terribly weak attack when *I* am the one who arrived at a conclusion different from my initial instincts, whereas every single OCT is just bearing out what they've believed from day 1.
If you don't think that the guys at NIST were told "find out how the airplane damage and fires could have done" this and then went away and did that, I think you are being very naive. CD is FAR too radical, politically and morally, to have ever been on the table for a body set up and funded by the government.
Before pointing out what you perceive as irony, you need to address this. I did NOT start with a pre-determined conclusion. I progressed to my current conclusion gradually, at one stage with each side pulling on me with equal strength. This is completely the opposite situation to the OCTs who have had the same conclusion since day 1.
Accusing me of a pre-determined conclusion is NONSENSE and a completely feeble attempt to shield those who really did have an inbuilt belief and worked backwards from that.
When did I ever say that YOU started with a preconceived notion? I said that the sights that you looked at did.
That you used to believe the OCT proves little how does that line go about "converts make the strongest believers". Many of the neo-cons were progressives in the 60's, does that make their currant beliefs more valid? It shows that you are or were more open minded than most CTists who probably started blaming Bush for planing 9/11 before 2 WTC fell.
How do you know that there aren't people who used to believe the CTs who now reject them: a friend's husband used to believe them but (largely due to my influence) changed his mind, CS says that people told him his site changed their minds. The fact that we didn't change our minds proves little as well, someone who was right to begin with doesn't have to change his mind
The NIST and FEMA reports were gov't sponsored but the NIST panel included outside consultants, most of the ASCE BPS team were independent as were the numerous engineers who wrote various papers and articles and the still more who reviewed them. The fact that not a single qualified expert from anywhere in the world supports your theories should tell you something. You say the collapses violate the laws of physics then all those engineer must be complete idiots because you know more than they do!
BTW - What is your technical background? If you presume to understand the WTC collapses better that all the honest civil engineers who studied them, then it would be interesting to know your qualifications to hold such a belief.
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,
Emphasis mine.
As far as I know, the OCT's have not provided a shred of evidence showing that global collapse of WTC 1 & 2 was truly inevitable, much less that it would have only occurred in only a few seconds more than free fall time.
The NIST studies were only up to collapse initiation. I, personally, have never claimed they are incorrect because 1) I haven't studied them and 2) I don't have the technical background to evaluate them, anyway.
I have noted, several times, that I don't believe that even a local collapse was possible, in the WTC scenarios, without "help", but I have never claimed that I knew that to be the case.
As far as theoretical results go, as far as I can tell, Gordon's work is the KING (so far). The final judgement on his paper will depend on engineers, mostly, not physicists and certainly not laymen. Need I add that the silence of civil engineers who never read Gordon's paper does not tell us anything?**
I consider BZ's "elastic dynamic analysis" a bad joke, for reasons I discussed extensively on this thread. The rest of BZ has been dismembered by Gordon (though again, I leave the final judgement of that to engineers.)
I do not consider Greening's paper very useful, or, for that matter, my fellow Scholars for 911 Truth member Professor Judy Wood. I have discussed why on this thread. I'm quite happy that we have a Ph.D. civil engineer on board, but I hope she has collaborated with Gordon to use her expertise in a more convincing way ( I am thinking mostly wrt a civil/construction engineering audience ).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What you guys obviously forget is that I didn't START out believing in CD, so your claim that it was a pre-determined conclusion for me is NONSENSE. And I could PROVE it was nonsense by showing the long discussion I went through where my views gradually changed from thinking CD theories raised some troubling questions to being fully convinced by them. And that transformation took several months. This is a terribly weak attack when *I* am the one who arrived at a conclusion different from my initial instincts, whereas every single OCT is just bearing out what they've believed from day 1. If you don't think that the guys at NIST were told "find out how the airplane damage and fires could have done" this and then went away and did that, I think you are being very naive. CD is FAR too radical, politically and morally, to have ever been on the table for a body set up and funded by the government. |
Before pointing out what you perceive as irony, you need to address this. I did NOT start with a pre-determined conclusion. I progressed to my current conclusion gradually, at one stage with each side pulling on me with equal strength. This is completely the opposite situation to the OCTs who have had the same conclusion since day 1.
Accusing me of a pre-determined conclusion is NONSENSE and a completely feeble attempt to shield those who really did have an inbuilt belief and worked backwards from that.
When did I ever say that YOU started with a preconceived notion? I said that the sights that you looked at did.
That you used to believe the OCT proves little how does that line go about "converts make the strongest believers". Many of the neo-cons were progressives in the 60's, does that make their currant beliefs more valid? It shows that you are or were more open minded than most CTists who probably started blaming Bush for planing 9/11 before 2 WTC fell.
How do you know that there aren't people who used to believe the CTs who now reject them: a friend's husband used to believe them but (largely due to my influence) changed his mind, CS says that people told him his site changed their minds. The fact that we didn't change our minds proves little as well, someone who was right to begin with doesn't have to change his mind
The NIST and FEMA reports were gov't sponsored but the NIST panel included outside consultants, most of the ASCE BPS team were independent as were the numerous engineers who wrote various papers and articles and the still more who reviewed them. The fact that not a single qualified expert from anywhere in the world supports your theories should tell you something. You say the collapses violate the laws of physics then all those engineer must be complete idiots because you know more than they do!
BTW - What is your technical background? If you presume to understand the WTC collapses better that all the honest civil engineers who studied them, then it would be interesting to know your qualifications to hold such a belief.
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,
Emphasis mine.
As far as I know, the OCT's have not provided a shred of evidence showing that global collapse of WTC 1 & 2 was truly inevitable, much less that it would have only occurred in only a few seconds more than free fall time.
The NIST studies were only up to collapse initiation. I, personally, have never claimed they are incorrect because 1) I haven't studied them and 2) I don't have the technical background to evaluate them, anyway.
I have noted, several times, that I don't believe that even a local collapse was possible, in the WTC scenarios, without "help", but I have never claimed that I knew that to be the case.
As far as theoretical results go, as far as I can tell, Gordon's work is the KING (so far). The final judgement on his paper will depend on engineers, mostly, not physicists and certainly not laymen. Need I add that the silence of civil engineers who never read Gordon's paper does not tell us anything?**
I consider BZ's "elastic dynamic analysis" a bad joke, for reasons I discussed extensively on this thread. The rest of BZ has been dismembered by Gordon (though again, I leave the final judgement of that to engineers.)
I do not consider Greening's paper very useful, or, for that matter, my fellow Scholars for 911 Truth member Professor Judy Wood. I have discussed why on this thread. I'm quite happy that we have a Ph.D. civil engineer on board, but I hope she has collaborated with Gordon to use her expertise in a more convincing way ( I am thinking mostly wrt a civil/construction engineering audience ).
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.
emphasis mine
Ah-h-h. I seem to remember from another forum that you didn't even know that, in general, disproof of one proposition is not identical with the proof of a contrary one. My guess is that you don't have a clue what a truth table is, and furthermore, haven't thought through the limititations of applying purely mathematical logic to a complicated physics/engineering problem, which is almost invariably messier, even if you did know what a truth table is.
QUOTE
The collapses fit computer and theoretical models.
No, they didn't. Collapse initiation did fit NIST's computer model (or more accurately, the other way around), and Jones has clearly implied that they did so because of fraud.
Maybe Jones is right, and maybe Jones is wrong, wrt NIST's model being fudged. I don't have a huge problem with anybody who gives NIST the benefit of the doubt on the issue of collapse initiation, due to the huge expertise (and manpower) differential. Hopefully, if an when a real investigation is convened, a thorough review of the NIST work will take place.
NIST makes no scientific, non-handwaving claim re global collapse - they certainly haven't even attempted to prove their handwaving, implied claim re "inevitable global collapse".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The collapses fit computer and theoretical models. |
No, they didn't. Collapse initiation did fit NIST's computer model (or more accurately, the other way around), and Jones has clearly implied that they did so because of fraud.
Maybe Jones is right, and maybe Jones is wrong, wrt NIST's model being fudged. I don't have a huge problem with anybody who gives NIST the benefit of the doubt on the issue of collapse initiation, due to the huge expertise (and manpower) differential. Hopefully, if an when a real investigation is convened, a thorough review of the NIST work will take place.
NIST makes no scientific, non-handwaving claim re global collapse - they certainly haven't even attempted to prove their handwaving, implied claim re "inevitable global collapse".
The Theory of Evolution can't be proven does that make creationism legitimate?
I suppose you mean the theory of evolution by natural selection, as biologists, in general, don't doubt evolution at all, and consider it 100% fact.
You seem to be implying that newtonnjd is claiming that because the OCT'ers have no proof of their claim re global collapse, this makes the CT'ers correct.
I don't think he's implying that at all, and thus your argument is a straw man, even after being charitably interpreted.
QUOTE
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.
For compelling theoretical reasons, of course. (Plus, an experiment, possibly two out of Europe, though I can't remember for sure.)
So what? This has nothing to do with anything. There was no theoretical or experimental evidence, pre 911, that the WTC towers would collapse globally if hit by a plane, fireproofing was shaken loose, etc.
Even after 911, while there may be strong evidence that a local collapse is possible (without CD) - i.e., the NIST report - once again, I've never seen anything convincing that one could consider evidence for the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale re global collapse. (Meanwhile, the evidence for CD is considerable, and in some respects overwhelming, and seems to be getting stronger all the time, as more and more of the photographic evidence becomes available, at least wrt this thread.)
With one exception. And that is, the beams that show essentially no damage, but with bolts that are just "missing". The ends are square, and show no signs of stress (deformation). This is not what I expect from a CD or a FEMA Fairy Tale collapse scenario, but it seems to me to favor the FEMA Fairy Tale more than CD.
Of course, there's always the possibility of fraud.
Thankfully, NIST did a bang up job in keeping hundreds and thousands of these curiously undisturbed beams, which seem like they wouldn't allow the building to withstand a 10 mph wind, much less a plane impact + fires. Thus, we know, thanks to NIST, how many bolts failed, how and why.
NOT
$20 million dollars, and they call our car the "clown" car! (Though I have to admit, I find the phrase "clown car" humorous, and am, in fact, a little fond of it.
)QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
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. |
For compelling theoretical reasons, of course. (Plus, an experiment, possibly two out of Europe, though I can't remember for sure.)
So what? This has nothing to do with anything. There was no theoretical or experimental evidence, pre 911, that the WTC towers would collapse globally if hit by a plane, fireproofing was shaken loose, etc.
Even after 911, while there may be strong evidence that a local collapse is possible (without CD) - i.e., the NIST report - once again, I've never seen anything convincing that one could consider evidence for the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tale re global collapse. (Meanwhile, the evidence for CD is considerable, and in some respects overwhelming, and seems to be getting stronger all the time, as more and more of the photographic evidence becomes available, at least wrt this thread.)
With one exception. And that is, the beams that show essentially no damage, but with bolts that are just "missing". The ends are square, and show no signs of stress (deformation). This is not what I expect from a CD or a FEMA Fairy Tale collapse scenario, but it seems to me to favor the FEMA Fairy Tale more than CD.
Of course, there's always the possibility of fraud.
Thankfully, NIST did a bang up job in keeping hundreds and thousands of these curiously undisturbed beams, which seem like they wouldn't allow the building to withstand a 10 mph wind, much less a plane impact + fires. Thus, we know, thanks to NIST, how many bolts failed, how and why.
NOT
$20 million dollars, and they call our car the "clown" car! (Though I have to admit, I find the phrase "clown car" humorous, and am, in fact, a little fond of it.
)So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically?
Re "slower": Gordon's paper, on the theoretical side, to show that global collapse WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED, never mind more slowly than was observed. *
Your side will have even less to stand on as time goes by.
As for a definitive FEA, with fire modeling, etc., past the point of collapse initiation: A week ago, I expected that this would not be done in the next few years, at best, and probably never. However, the recent news that Hugo Chavez is supporting a serious, international, investigation may well be the BEST news for 911 truth, EVER.
The reason is that Venezuela has oil $$, so for them to pony up $20 million for a FEA study, +, is just chump change.
Since you're a sincere seeker of the truth, you doubtless would welcome such an event. Am I correct, here, or not? (Yes, I am being facetious, but go ahead and answer the question.)
* Re "asymmetric/symmetric" : common sense - which is why I urge activists to take pictures of the collapses and show them to Ph.D. civil/construction engineers. It's conceivable that I'm wrong about "symmetric" wrt a collapse that is not severely asymmetric to begin with, which was the case with one of the towers.
Re. WTC 7: this was so perfectly symmetrical, that my intuition clearly suggests CD, and the official Fairy Tales are particularly ludicrous. I welcome the structural engineering community to weigh in on the issue, even if with only their intuition (for starters).
Speaking of which: Is there a single structural engineer in the entire world who has said that they are just fine with the Fairy Tale version of the collapse of WTC 7?
** I don't think the paper is even publicly available, yet, or I imagine I would have read about that fact, here.
First, on the squibs issue, I would like to see those CD videos in slow -mo to really make a comparison with the WTC 1 & 2 squibs.
Second, Greening's calculation of the WTC collpse may be a crude approximation, but it IS useful for introducing the quantity E1, the energy neded to collapse one floor. Greening estimates E1 to be less than 2 gigajoules, while Gordon says its closer to 5 gigajoules. If Gordon is correct, there is no collapse without explosives. Gordon's estimate is based on his calculation of the buckling energy and assumes that the columns were able to develop their full buckling resistance because both ends were pinned. However, if the column splices failed BEFORE the full buckling resistance was realized, E1 will be much less and down comes each Tower.....
I belive splice failures were very common. Look at pictures of the ends of the columns in the debris pile. Many show evidence for MISSING BOLTS, with pristine, un-gouged, bolt holes. Also many core box columns show clean breaks at the welds. (It is also possible that bolts were not properly torqued down, giving unintended flexibility to the structure.) Asymmetrical damage caused tilting of the upper block of floors and loose or missing connectors could not handle this tilting...
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
Second, Greening's calculation of the WTC collpse may be a crude approximation, but it IS useful for introducing the quantity E1, the energy neded to collapse one floor. Greening estimates E1 to be less than 2 gigajoules, while Gordon says its closer to 5 gigajoules. If Gordon is correct, there is no collapse without explosives. Gordon's estimate is based on his calculation of the buckling energy and assumes that the columns were able to develop their full buckling resistance because both ends were pinned. However, if the column splices failed BEFORE the full buckling resistance was realized, E1 will be much less and down comes each Tower.....
I belive splice failures were very common. Look at pictures of the ends of the columns in the debris pile. Many show evidence for MISSING BOLTS, with pristine, un-gouged, bolt holes. Also many core box columns show clean breaks at the welds. (It is also possible that bolts were not properly torqued down, giving unintended flexibility to the structure.) Asymmetrical damage caused tilting of the upper block of floors and loose or missing connectors could not handle this tilting...
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
Metamars
I'll be going to the beach soon so I don't have time reply your lengthy post above, no matter only two important questions come to mind:
1) Where can we read Gordon's paper?
2) What qualifications does Gordon have that any civil engineers should bother to read or respond to it? A fundamentalist Christian with out any credentials can write a paper supporting creation science but if no biologist wastes his or her time writing a reply it doesn't add legitimacy to their views.
Len
PS I remember your misunderstanding of proofs from apollohoax too! LOL
PPS When are you going to take up your own challenge and offer photographic proof of your "spire collapse" theory.
I'll be going to the beach soon so I don't have time reply your lengthy post above, no matter only two important questions come to mind:
1) Where can we read Gordon's paper?
2) What qualifications does Gordon have that any civil engineers should bother to read or respond to it? A fundamentalist Christian with out any credentials can write a paper supporting creation science but if no biologist wastes his or her time writing a reply it doesn't add legitimacy to their views.
Len
PS I remember your misunderstanding of proofs from apollohoax too! LOL
PPS When are you going to take up your own challenge and offer photographic proof of your "spire collapse" theory.
9/11 Truth, Creationism and Holocaust Denial
I asked supporters of the “9/11 was an ‘inside job’ “ theory in various forums if they could name any civil engineers, licensed architects, construction contractors, fire engineers, failure analysis specialists or demolition experts etc who back their contention that the collapse of the WTC buildings was due to controlled demolition and that the Pentagon was hit by missile. So far they haven’t been able to come up with any names nor have I found any in my own research.
This to me raises a basic question. If the FEMA/American Society of Civil Engineers and NIST reports were so obviously wrong I would expect hundreds of architects, civil and structural engineers and other experts to question their findings but apparently not a single one has from anywhere in the World..
One CTist objected when I compared his theories to creation science, but the parallels are striking. Like creation science and Holocaust denial, "WTC was a demolition job"/ "a missile hit the Pentagon" theories have no backing from experts in their respective fields. Proponents of all three theories trot out "experts" with advanced degrees, but they are all in unrelated subjects, there are PhDs in Political Science and Electrical Engineering who say the Holocaust was a hoax, and PhDs in Philosophy and Classics who say God created the World in six days, and you have PhDs in Nuclear Physics, Philosophy and Kinesiology who say the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.
Another similarity is that all three "theories" are ideologically based: backers of creation science are fundamentalist Christians, WTC/Pentagon CTists by and large have extreme right, extreme left or extreme anti-Israel political views and Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites.*
I know it's not fair to tar the entire "9/11 Truth Movement" with this but Holocaust deniers all back the 9/11 “inside job” theory. The American Free Press, Christopher Bollyn, John Kaminski, Rense, 9-11 Strike.com, Jane Christensen, Eric Hufscmidt, David Irving, whatreallyhappened.com, and APFN are just a few of the people/sites that deny the Holocaust and push 9/11 CTs.**
It's not the entire "9/11 Trurh" movement but there is a strong anti-Semitic undercurrent to many of the CT's [indeed several of the CTist are Jewish themselves] :
1] "No Jews [or Israelis] were killed in the WTC, they were warned to stay at home",
2] "9/11 was carried out by the Jewish controlled NWO in order to justify a war for Israel",
3] Despite the fact Bush has no Jews in his cabinet, many CTs say that 2nd level Jewish [aka dual loyalists] sub-Secretaries and advisers like Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol are the ones who really control the Bush administration [the old ZOG myth].
4] "Larry Silverstein was in on it as part of an insurance scam", many of the people who push this make a point of pointing out his heritage.
5] The "Jewish controlled media" is said to be responsible for covering up the truth about 9/11
As far as I can tell oilempire.com [whose webmaster is Jewish] and democraticunderground.com are the only "9/11 Truth" sites to renounce connection with anti-Semites. Holocaust denier Eric Hufschmidt and Peter Meyer (who runs the anti-Semitic serendipity site) are an associate members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Hufschmidt is also a member of SPINE as is anti-Semite Leland Lerhman (he was born Jewish but converted to Christianity, he advances various “Jewish conspiracy myths).
I find it disturbing that people who purport to be progressive/liberal/Socialist etc. seem to be all to willing to cooperate with people who have such repugnant views.
* There is also a connection between the crackpot theory that the Moon landings were faked and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Eric Hufschmidt, and Jack White believe the landings were faked John Costella and Jim Fetzer (founder of st911) doubt we went. Like the other theories this one does not have any backing from people who have relevant experience.
**Willis Carto (publisher of the American Free Press), Bollyn and Irving are racists as well. There is racist and anti-Semitic content on poison planet as well.
I asked supporters of the “9/11 was an ‘inside job’ “ theory in various forums if they could name any civil engineers, licensed architects, construction contractors, fire engineers, failure analysis specialists or demolition experts etc who back their contention that the collapse of the WTC buildings was due to controlled demolition and that the Pentagon was hit by missile. So far they haven’t been able to come up with any names nor have I found any in my own research.
This to me raises a basic question. If the FEMA/American Society of Civil Engineers and NIST reports were so obviously wrong I would expect hundreds of architects, civil and structural engineers and other experts to question their findings but apparently not a single one has from anywhere in the World..
One CTist objected when I compared his theories to creation science, but the parallels are striking. Like creation science and Holocaust denial, "WTC was a demolition job"/ "a missile hit the Pentagon" theories have no backing from experts in their respective fields. Proponents of all three theories trot out "experts" with advanced degrees, but they are all in unrelated subjects, there are PhDs in Political Science and Electrical Engineering who say the Holocaust was a hoax, and PhDs in Philosophy and Classics who say God created the World in six days, and you have PhDs in Nuclear Physics, Philosophy and Kinesiology who say the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.
Another similarity is that all three "theories" are ideologically based: backers of creation science are fundamentalist Christians, WTC/Pentagon CTists by and large have extreme right, extreme left or extreme anti-Israel political views and Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites.*
I know it's not fair to tar the entire "9/11 Truth Movement" with this but Holocaust deniers all back the 9/11 “inside job” theory. The American Free Press, Christopher Bollyn, John Kaminski, Rense, 9-11 Strike.com, Jane Christensen, Eric Hufscmidt, David Irving, whatreallyhappened.com, and APFN are just a few of the people/sites that deny the Holocaust and push 9/11 CTs.**
It's not the entire "9/11 Trurh" movement but there is a strong anti-Semitic undercurrent to many of the CT's [indeed several of the CTist are Jewish themselves] :
1] "No Jews [or Israelis] were killed in the WTC, they were warned to stay at home",
2] "9/11 was carried out by the Jewish controlled NWO in order to justify a war for Israel",
3] Despite the fact Bush has no Jews in his cabinet, many CTs say that 2nd level Jewish [aka dual loyalists] sub-Secretaries and advisers like Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol are the ones who really control the Bush administration [the old ZOG myth].
4] "Larry Silverstein was in on it as part of an insurance scam", many of the people who push this make a point of pointing out his heritage.
5] The "Jewish controlled media" is said to be responsible for covering up the truth about 9/11
As far as I can tell oilempire.com [whose webmaster is Jewish] and democraticunderground.com are the only "9/11 Truth" sites to renounce connection with anti-Semites. Holocaust denier Eric Hufschmidt and Peter Meyer (who runs the anti-Semitic serendipity site) are an associate members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Hufschmidt is also a member of SPINE as is anti-Semite Leland Lerhman (he was born Jewish but converted to Christianity, he advances various “Jewish conspiracy myths).
I find it disturbing that people who purport to be progressive/liberal/Socialist etc. seem to be all to willing to cooperate with people who have such repugnant views.
* There is also a connection between the crackpot theory that the Moon landings were faked and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Eric Hufschmidt, and Jack White believe the landings were faked John Costella and Jim Fetzer (founder of st911) doubt we went. Like the other theories this one does not have any backing from people who have relevant experience.
**Willis Carto (publisher of the American Free Press), Bollyn and Irving are racists as well. There is racist and anti-Semitic content on poison planet as well.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 2 2006, 01:13 PM)
First, on the squibs issue, I would like to see those CD videos in slow -mo to really make a comparison with the WTC 1 & 2 squibs.
Second, Greening's calculation of the WTC collpse may be a crude approximation, but it IS useful for introducing the quantity E1, the energy neded to collapse one floor. Greening estimates E1 to be less than 2 gigajoules, while Gordon says its closer to 5 gigajoules. If Gordon is correct, there is no collapse without explosives. Gordon's estimate is based on his calculation of the buckling energy and assumes that the columns were able to develop their full buckling resistance because both ends were pinned. However, if the column splices failed BEFORE the full buckling resistance was realized, E1 will be much less and down comes each Tower.....
I belive splice failures were very common. Look at pictures of the ends of the columns in the debris pile. Many show evidence for MISSING BOLTS, with pristine, un-gouged, bolt holes. Also many core box columns show clean breaks at the welds. (It is also possible that bolts were not properly torqued down, giving unintended flexibility to the structure.) Asymmetrical damage caused tilting of the upper block of floors and loose or missing connectors could not handle this tilting...
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
I leave it to engineers to decide how reasonable your claim is, as this subject is well beyond me. Intuitively, bolts that just "go away" or just "snap" don't make much sense to me, even as an anomaly, and there seems something very wrong about it.
If you think about it, though, if this was a big part of the picture, why would NIST not extensively catalog these splices-in-name-only? No, a picture here or there is not the same thing.
The only plausible explanation I could think of that would allow for ubiquitous splice failures is, well, a conspiracy theory. And that is, that NIST covering up such allleged, ubiquitous splice failures may have been due to their protecting Silverstein, et. al., from massive law suits (and, in turn, the original contractors and/or engineers).
Just claiming the bolts failed makes about as much sense to me as just claiming the towers fell, due to gravity plus jet impacts plus fire. Why did the bolts fail, and how common was their failure?
Also, while the columns being ejected laterally do indeed look straight, pictures of the rubble piles don't reveal much of anything that is straight.
BTW, there's a piece of twisted metal in the Franciscan Catholic Church on 34th St. from the WTC collapse that looks like what one would expect in a collapse (gravity or CD). It may actually be too twisted, due to an artist getting creative, but it sure as heck isn't straight.
Second, Greening's calculation of the WTC collpse may be a crude approximation, but it IS useful for introducing the quantity E1, the energy neded to collapse one floor. Greening estimates E1 to be less than 2 gigajoules, while Gordon says its closer to 5 gigajoules. If Gordon is correct, there is no collapse without explosives. Gordon's estimate is based on his calculation of the buckling energy and assumes that the columns were able to develop their full buckling resistance because both ends were pinned. However, if the column splices failed BEFORE the full buckling resistance was realized, E1 will be much less and down comes each Tower.....
I belive splice failures were very common. Look at pictures of the ends of the columns in the debris pile. Many show evidence for MISSING BOLTS, with pristine, un-gouged, bolt holes. Also many core box columns show clean breaks at the welds. (It is also possible that bolts were not properly torqued down, giving unintended flexibility to the structure.) Asymmetrical damage caused tilting of the upper block of floors and loose or missing connectors could not handle this tilting...
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
I leave it to engineers to decide how reasonable your claim is, as this subject is well beyond me. Intuitively, bolts that just "go away" or just "snap" don't make much sense to me, even as an anomaly, and there seems something very wrong about it.
If you think about it, though, if this was a big part of the picture, why would NIST not extensively catalog these splices-in-name-only? No, a picture here or there is not the same thing.
The only plausible explanation I could think of that would allow for ubiquitous splice failures is, well, a conspiracy theory. And that is, that NIST covering up such allleged, ubiquitous splice failures may have been due to their protecting Silverstein, et. al., from massive law suits (and, in turn, the original contractors and/or engineers).
Just claiming the bolts failed makes about as much sense to me as just claiming the towers fell, due to gravity plus jet impacts plus fire. Why did the bolts fail, and how common was their failure?
Also, while the columns being ejected laterally do indeed look straight, pictures of the rubble piles don't reveal much of anything that is straight.
BTW, there's a piece of twisted metal in the Franciscan Catholic Church on 34th St. from the WTC collapse that looks like what one would expect in a collapse (gravity or CD). It may actually be too twisted, due to an artist getting creative, but it sure as heck isn't straight.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Apr 1 2006, 10:14 PM)
Do I really have to provide the punch-line here.
APRIL FOOLS
Yeah, as the e-mail I fired off to everyone on our side at the time shows I was helping it along. I guess I didn't do a good enough job. HEHE.
APRIL FOOLS
Yeah, as the e-mail I fired off to everyone on our side at the time shows I was helping it along. I guess I didn't do a good enough job. HEHE.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 2 2006, 12:36 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 1 2006, 09:13 PM)
QUOTE
Just for your information the redundant electrical systems works against your theory. The redundancy is for safety and damage control not multiple large arcs. In other words, it is set up to stop what witnesses described.
No, it is set up to reduce transformer failures caused by too much demand on supply thus heating them up. It most certainly was not designed to protect from massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
Transformer failure from heating would be considered damage control along with massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
So how do you think a Circuit Breaker Works?
Hint: The simplest circuit protection device is the fuse.
You only need to cause a flash. Why do you ignore this? A flash can occure well within the time the circuit trips completely. This happens all ther time in powerline falures. How do you explain why powerlines flash even though they have breakers? Or are there no protections built into powerlines?
QUOTE (Alek+Apr 2 2006, 03:32 AM)
Actually, there is a photo of the south side of WTC 7 taken after WTC 1 collapses that shows damage on the southeast side, which is inconsistent with the firefighter testimony. There is also a video that documents more than a "few" fires. The photo is hard to find but it is out there. If you can't find it I will see if I can dig it up.
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Can you post this? Because in all the 911 sites I have been to they don't have it. I'm sure they could use this for their NIST is lying" argument. Why have YOU seen it and they not?
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Can you post this? Because in all the 911 sites I have been to they don't have it. I'm sure they could use this for their NIST is lying" argument. Why have YOU seen it and they not?
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 2 2006, 06:57 AM)
Speaking of which: Is there a single structural engineer in the entire world who has said that they are just fine with the Fairy Tale version of the collapse of WTC 7?
** I don't think the paper is even publicly available, yet, or I imagine I would have read about that fact, here.
Dr. Miller, Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction
David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report
Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.
John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University
Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response
James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland
Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=
So the short answer is yes... many have come out for normal collapse by fire and some even pointedly against the mass conspiracy lunacy.
Again, where is the civil engineer/structural engineer coming out FOR the mass murder conspiracy lunacy.
This was all shown to you before. You just have a selective memory/bias among other things.
** I don't think the paper is even publicly available, yet, or I imagine I would have read about that fact, here.
Dr. Miller, Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction
David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report
Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.
John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University
Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response
James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland
Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=
So the short answer is yes... many have come out for normal collapse by fire and some even pointedly against the mass conspiracy lunacy.
Again, where is the civil engineer/structural engineer coming out FOR the mass murder conspiracy lunacy.
This was all shown to you before. You just have a selective memory/bias among other things.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 03:23 PM)
QUOTE (Alek+Apr 2 2006, 03:32 AM)
Actually, there is a photo of the south side of WTC 7 taken after WTC 1 collapses that shows damage on the southeast side, which is inconsistent with the firefighter testimony. There is also a video that documents more than a "few" fires. The photo is hard to find but it is out there. If you can't find it I will see if I can dig it up.
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Can you post this? Because in all the 911 sites I have been to they don't have it. I'm sure they could use this for their NIST is lying" argument. Why have YOU seen it and they not?
Not only have I seen it, I will find it and post it. The photo reveals not insubstantial damage to the southeast corner of the building, and looks like it was taken by helicopter. Here is a link to the video.
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Can you post this? Because in all the 911 sites I have been to they don't have it. I'm sure they could use this for their NIST is lying" argument. Why have YOU seen it and they not?
Not only have I seen it, I will find it and post it. The photo reveals not insubstantial damage to the southeast corner of the building, and looks like it was taken by helicopter. Here is a link to the video.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 03:23 PM)
QUOTE (Alek+Apr 2 2006, 03:32 AM)
Actually, there is a photo of the south side of WTC 7 taken after WTC 1 collapses that shows damage on the southeast side, which is inconsistent with the firefighter testimony. There is also a video that documents more than a "few" fires. The photo is hard to find but it is out there. If you can't find it I will see if I can dig it up.
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Can you post this? Because in all the 911 sites I have been to they don't have it. I'm sure they could use this for their NIST is lying" argument. Why have YOU seen it and they not?
Ok, I found it. Here is a rare image of the south side of the building:
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
Controlled demolition does not require the columns to bend or buckle. Gravity driven collapse does. Your are good at pointing out the problems with the gravity driven collapse theory.
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Can you post this? Because in all the 911 sites I have been to they don't have it. I'm sure they could use this for their NIST is lying" argument. Why have YOU seen it and they not?
Ok, I found it. Here is a rare image of the south side of the building:
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 2 2006, 05:13 AM)
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
Controlled demolition does not require the columns to bend or buckle. Gravity driven collapse does. Your are good at pointing out the problems with the gravity driven collapse theory.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 03:23 PM)
QUOTE (Alek+Apr 2 2006, 03:32 AM)
Actually, there is a photo of the south side of WTC 7 taken after WTC 1 collapses that shows damage on the southeast side, which is inconsistent with the firefighter testimony. There is also a video that documents more than a "few" fires. The photo is hard to find but it is out there. If you can't find it I will see if I can dig it up.
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Can you post this? Because in all the 911 sites I have been to they don't have it. I'm sure they could use this for their NIST is lying" argument. Why have YOU seen it and they not?
Here is another WTC image:
I may have been mistaken about the other image, that may have been the west side. I think this one is the south side.
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Can you post this? Because in all the 911 sites I have been to they don't have it. I'm sure they could use this for their NIST is lying" argument. Why have YOU seen it and they not?
Here is another WTC image:
I may have been mistaken about the other image, that may have been the west side. I think this one is the south side.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 03:23 PM)
QUOTE (Alek+Apr 2 2006, 03:32 AM)
Actually, there is a photo of the south side of WTC 7 taken after WTC 1 collapses that shows damage on the southeast side, which is inconsistent with the firefighter testimony. There is also a video that documents more than a "few" fires. The photo is hard to find but it is out there. If you can't find it I will see if I can dig it up.
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Can you post this? Because in all the 911 sites I have been to they don't have it. I'm sure they could use this for their NIST is lying" argument. Why have YOU seen it and they not?
Hmm, I take that back. I think those images are only of the north and west sides. Perhaps we will never know how much damage was on the south side.
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
Controlled demolition does not require the columns to bend or buckle. Gravity driven collapse does. Your are good at pointing out the problems with the gravity driven collapse theory.
Where do you find evidence the NIST said the failures were all in the column strength? I saw it say it was in the bolt connections and have posted the photos from the report showing so. Please support this claim with evidence.
CD or not, the evidence shows bolt/connection failures for the majority of seperating steel members.
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Can you post this? Because in all the 911 sites I have been to they don't have it. I'm sure they could use this for their NIST is lying" argument. Why have YOU seen it and they not?
Hmm, I take that back. I think those images are only of the north and west sides. Perhaps we will never know how much damage was on the south side.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 2 2006, 11:17 AM)
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 2 2006, 05:13 AM)
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
Controlled demolition does not require the columns to bend or buckle. Gravity driven collapse does. Your are good at pointing out the problems with the gravity driven collapse theory.
Where do you find evidence the NIST said the failures were all in the column strength? I saw it say it was in the bolt connections and have posted the photos from the report showing so. Please support this claim with evidence.
CD or not, the evidence shows bolt/connection failures for the majority of seperating steel members.
QUOTE (Alek+Apr 2 2006, 11:22 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 03:23 PM)
QUOTE (Alek+Apr 2 2006, 03:32 AM)
Actually, there is a photo of the south side of WTC 7 taken after WTC 1 collapses that shows damage on the southeast side, which is inconsistent with the firefighter testimony. There is also a video that documents more than a "few" fires. The photo is hard to find but it is out there. If you can't find it I will see if I can dig it up.
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Can you post this? Because in all the 911 sites I have been to they don't have it. I'm sure they could use this for their NIST is lying" argument. Why have YOU seen it and they not?
Here is another WTC image:
I may have been mistaken about the other image, that may have been the west side. I think this one is the south side.
No, this is the north side.
Here is the south side. Give it time to load, it's a 5 meg mov file and the connection is slow. You may want to right click on it and choose "save target as". Once it begins you will see the north side for a few seconds then the south shortly after.
Here are the fireman saying they need to pull everyone out while they video the south side...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
Despite this, it is hard for me to believe that asymmetrical fire damage could cause a symmetrical collapse as witnessed.
Can you post this? Because in all the 911 sites I have been to they don't have it. I'm sure they could use this for their NIST is lying" argument. Why have YOU seen it and they not?
Here is another WTC image:
I may have been mistaken about the other image, that may have been the west side. I think this one is the south side.
No, this is the north side.
Here is the south side. Give it time to load, it's a 5 meg mov file and the connection is slow. You may want to right click on it and choose "save target as". Once it begins you will see the north side for a few seconds then the south shortly after.
Here are the fireman saying they need to pull everyone out while they video the south side...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Apr 2 2006, 07:56 AM)
One last point, before you vanish me, to my own thread. The still standing core appears to be about the height of the 1st mech-level. Right? As the collapse progressed, the integrity of the lateral support in the core at this point was much stronger and it was able to arrest the column failure momentarily. Why the core then fell like a tied bundle of sticks, suddenly untied, is as weird as everything else.
Here is the core area. No bundle of sticks falling outward. Most of the concrete shear walls have just detonated at a delay rate of around 120 vertical foot per second inside the the still standing interior box columns.
Here it is later, no bundle untied.
When did it ever fall like an untied bundle, as it must of if it existed? Or the 47, 1,300 foot columns were cut up to 1,500 times to make them disapear in the falling debris. When did those explosions take place?
And yes, that would be about the mech floor of WTC 2, the 42nd.
Then lower (north tower). What is that vertical plume going hundreds of feet upward?
There is no evidence that you will vanish as 47, 1,300 foot columns obviously have.
Here is the core area. No bundle of sticks falling outward. Most of the concrete shear walls have just detonated at a delay rate of around 120 vertical foot per second inside the the still standing interior box columns.
Here it is later, no bundle untied.
When did it ever fall like an untied bundle, as it must of if it existed? Or the 47, 1,300 foot columns were cut up to 1,500 times to make them disapear in the falling debris. When did those explosions take place?
And yes, that would be about the mech floor of WTC 2, the 42nd.
Then lower (north tower). What is that vertical plume going hundreds of feet upward?
There is no evidence that you will vanish as 47, 1,300 foot columns obviously have.
Common sense
And who is going to believe a reporter citing an anonymous source?
Well I don't agree. I would choose life for my family in a dangerous world than no life at all. We are nowhere near a stage where life cannot be enjoyed. I would never risk the safety of my family to speak out.
Well I don't agree. I would choose life for my family in a dangerous world than no life at all. We are nowhere near a stage where life cannot be enjoyed. I would never risk the safety of my family to speak out.
Forgive me but this sounds like rationalizing. Are you saying the fireman would risk dying in the next time the government wanted to invade another country or take away freedoms? I just can't see that...
No I'm saying they wouldn't even entertain the idea that their comrades died for nothing that day. Their emotional reaction would be just to write off the CTs as nonsense.
Forgive me but this sounds like rationalizing. Are you saying the fireman would risk dying in the next time the government wanted to invade another country or take away freedoms? I just can't see that...
No I'm saying they wouldn't even entertain the idea that their comrades died for nothing that day. Their emotional reaction would be just to write off the CTs as nonsense.
Until you have a peer reviewed paper by a structural/civil engineering journal which says it could ONLY be CD then CD is just one in a million other possibilities which you have no evidence for. As I sad, why would you expect a different result if the fires/building impact/penthouse collapse created the same effect as a CD in the end?
But I am not claiming CD is 100% proven. It is my opinion that it's by far the most likely explanation, but I am not in possession of the truth. What is needed is for the CD hypothesis to atleast be investigated.
CDs commonly cause central kinks, so to claim that makes it look less like a CD is rather amusing.
And "all the evidence" points to fires?? Again, please let Dr Sunder know this is the case, as he still "doesn't know" why 7 collapsed.
CDs commonly cause central kinks, so to claim that makes it look less like a CD is rather amusing.
And "all the evidence" points to fires?? Again, please let Dr Sunder know this is the case, as he still "doesn't know" why 7 collapsed.
Read highlighted text
The kink is not a difference. Is that all you have?
Read highlighted text
The kink is not a difference. Is that all you have?
I never said it was. I only said it was another indication to me. I just can't figure out why if you say it's so obvious.
Where have I said it's obvious? I think it's obvious that CD would fit and should be investigated as a possibility. But it's not a black and white issue and I never claimed it was.
Because in the US it would be ignored as "America bashing"? They probably realise it would be a fruitless effort and wouldn't change anything outside their own country. They know the US is a lost cause in terms of open and honest investigation.
Because in the US it would be ignored as "America bashing"? They probably realise it would be a fruitless effort and wouldn't change anything outside their own country. They know the US is a lost cause in terms of open and honest investigation.
And they have. Not only from the same university Jones teaches at but others who have passed peer reviewed papers saying the building COULD collapse from impact/fire.
Um, saying "we do not support Professor Jones' conlusion", without making any effort to address his arguments, does not mean much. It's probably just a CYA disclaimer incase they take heat for Jones' views. Plus it does not paint a fair picture of the reception he received amongst those at the university that he's actually given talks to.
Also, I'm talking about structural engineers standing up and directly addressing the CD arguments, not simply supporting the OCT at some point in the past.
I can't help you there I'm afraid.
However, you have still offered no explanation as to the mechanism that created the material of the 'squibs' if they were due only to pressurised air.
Also, it seems the air wasn't only moving downwards:
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/daily/20...C_survivor_wind
No, it is set up to reduce transformer failures caused by too much demand on supply thus heating them up. It most certainly was not designed to protect from massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
Transformer failure from heating would be considered damage control along with massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
So how do you think a Circuit Breaker Works?
Hint: The simplest circuit protection device is the fuse.
You only need to cause a flash. Why do you ignore this? A flash can occure well within the time the circuit trips completely. This happens all ther time in powerline falures. How do you explain why powerlines flash even though they have breakers? Or are there no protections built into powerlines?
I am not ignoring the fact an outside power line flashes. I asked for a reasonable explanation not a slight probability of occurrence. All the examples you have pictures of are outdoors. Indoor electrical systems have more safeguards so people are not injured and the building does not start on fire. Take an outdoor high power wire without insulation for example (like your website picture), you would not use this indoors. There is a big difference between indoor and outdoor transformers . I am just pointing out you and the “Truth Squad" are not really trying to find the truth.
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
Controlled demolition does not require the columns to bend or buckle. Gravity driven collapse does. Your are good at pointing out the problems with the gravity driven collapse theory.
Where do you find evidence the NIST said the failures were all in the column strength? I saw it say it was in the bolt connections and have posted the photos from the report showing so. Please support this claim with evidence.
CD or not, the evidence shows bolt/connection failures for the majority of seperating steel members.
First, show were NIST explains the failure mode of the core columns. All I read in the report was redistributing loads and weakened columns, then global collapse ensued:
6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1
The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 144-5/194-5)
6.14.3 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 2
The south exterior wall displaced downward following the aircraft impact, but did not displace further until the east wall became unstable 43 min later. The inward bowing of the east wall, due to the inward pull of the sagging floors, caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels and resulted in the east wall columns becoming unstable. The instability progressed horizontally across the entire east face. The east wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed them to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels.
The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the east and south as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls, and increased the gravity load on the weakened east core columns. As with WTC 1, once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 145-6/195-6)
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Umm, surely worrying about the safety of your family is another reason to stay silent? Not really, there are many ways to speak out without anyone knowing even who you are. You aren't saying they can't find ONE reporter who would keep their name silent are you? |
And who is going to believe a reporter citing an anonymous source?
QUOTE
But ther reality is if it were my family I would rather them die trying to uncover this than die in the next government catastiphy. It would be for my childrens futrue that I would speak out. What kind of world would I be giving them if I didn't? Hardly one worth living in...
Well I don't agree. I would choose life for my family in a dangerous world than no life at all. We are nowhere near a stage where life cannot be enjoyed. I would never risk the safety of my family to speak out.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But ther reality is if it were my family I would rather them die trying to uncover this than die in the next government catastiphy. It would be for my childrens futrue that I would speak out. What kind of world would I be giving them if I didn't? Hardly one worth living in... |
Well I don't agree. I would choose life for my family in a dangerous world than no life at all. We are nowhere near a stage where life cannot be enjoyed. I would never risk the safety of my family to speak out.
QUOTE
Probably because they're TOO close to it. It was a painful experience and they just want to put it behind them.
Forgive me but this sounds like rationalizing. Are you saying the fireman would risk dying in the next time the government wanted to invade another country or take away freedoms? I just can't see that...
No I'm saying they wouldn't even entertain the idea that their comrades died for nothing that day. Their emotional reaction would be just to write off the CTs as nonsense.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Probably because they're TOO close to it. It was a painful experience and they just want to put it behind them. |
Forgive me but this sounds like rationalizing. Are you saying the fireman would risk dying in the next time the government wanted to invade another country or take away freedoms? I just can't see that...
No I'm saying they wouldn't even entertain the idea that their comrades died for nothing that day. Their emotional reaction would be just to write off the CTs as nonsense.
Until you have a peer reviewed paper by a structural/civil engineering journal which says it could ONLY be CD then CD is just one in a million other possibilities which you have no evidence for. As I sad, why would you expect a different result if the fires/building impact/penthouse collapse created the same effect as a CD in the end?
But I am not claiming CD is 100% proven. It is my opinion that it's by far the most likely explanation, but I am not in possession of the truth. What is needed is for the CD hypothesis to atleast be investigated.
QUOTE
Yet there are other things which make it look less like a CD like the buildings kink on the way down which just happenes to be where the penthouse was and where the fires were seen coming out the east side. If it WAS CD it was some luck to have all the evidence point to the fires. As if the last thing the building did was point to the fire. "This did it... *GASP*"
CDs commonly cause central kinks, so to claim that makes it look less like a CD is rather amusing.
And "all the evidence" points to fires?? Again, please let Dr Sunder know this is the case, as he still "doesn't know" why 7 collapsed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yet there are other things which make it look less like a CD like the buildings kink on the way down which just happenes to be where the penthouse was and where the fires were seen coming out the east side. If it WAS CD it was some luck to have all the evidence point to the fires. As if the last thing the building did was point to the fire. "This did it... *GASP*" |
CDs commonly cause central kinks, so to claim that makes it look less like a CD is rather amusing.
And "all the evidence" points to fires?? Again, please let Dr Sunder know this is the case, as he still "doesn't know" why 7 collapsed.
QUOTE
(Seriously, what are these differences you are only now starting to spot?)
Read highlighted text
The kink is not a difference. Is that all you have?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Seriously, what are these differences you are only now starting to spot?) |
Read highlighted text
The kink is not a difference. Is that all you have?
I never said it was. I only said it was another indication to me. I just can't figure out why if you say it's so obvious.
Where have I said it's obvious? I think it's obvious that CD would fit and should be investigated as a possibility. But it's not a black and white issue and I never claimed it was.
QUOTE
Why haven't the structural engineers in france passed a peer reviewed paper?
Because in the US it would be ignored as "America bashing"? They probably realise it would be a fruitless effort and wouldn't change anything outside their own country. They know the US is a lost cause in terms of open and honest investigation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why haven't the structural engineers in france passed a peer reviewed paper? |
Because in the US it would be ignored as "America bashing"? They probably realise it would be a fruitless effort and wouldn't change anything outside their own country. They know the US is a lost cause in terms of open and honest investigation.
QUOTE
If the CD hypothesis is so ridiculous, wouldn't you expect some of these structural engineers to want to stand up and put these theories to bed?
And they have. Not only from the same university Jones teaches at but others who have passed peer reviewed papers saying the building COULD collapse from impact/fire.
Um, saying "we do not support Professor Jones' conlusion", without making any effort to address his arguments, does not mean much. It's probably just a CYA disclaimer incase they take heat for Jones' views. Plus it does not paint a fair picture of the reception he received amongst those at the university that he's actually given talks to.
Also, I'm talking about structural engineers standing up and directly addressing the CD arguments, not simply supporting the OCT at some point in the past.
America's war on the web
While the US remains committed to hunting down al-Qaeda operatives, it is now taking the battle to new fronts. Deep within the Pentagon, technologies are being deployed to wage the war on terror on the internet, in newspapers and even through mobile phones. Investigations editor Neil Mackay reports
IMAGINE a world where wars are fought over the internet; where TV broadcasts and newspaper reports are designed by the military to confuse the population; and where a foreign armed power can shut down your computer, phone, radio or TV at will.
In 2006, we are just about to enter such a world. This is the age of information warfare, and details of how this new military doctrine will affect everyone on the planet are contained in a report, entitled The Information Operations Roadmap, commissioned and approved by US secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld and seen by the Sunday Herald.
The Pentagon has already signed off $383 million to force through the document’s recommendations by 2009. Military and intelligence sources in the US talk of “a revolution in the concept of warfare”. The report orders three new developments in America’s approach to warfare:
Firstly, the Pentagon says it will wage war against the internet in order to dominate the realm of communications, prevent digital attacks on the US and its allies, and to have the upper hand when launching cyber-attacks against enemies.
Secondly, psychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media – from newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and personal digital assistants (PDAs) – to put out black propaganda to assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to wrong-foot the enemy
Thirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth’s electromagnetic spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication. That could see entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a switch by America.
Freedom of speech advocates are horrified at this new doctrine, but military planners and members of the intelligence community embrace the idea as a necessary development in modern combat.
Human rights lawyer John Scott, who chairs the Scottish Centre for Human Rights, said: “This is an unwelcome but natural development of what we have seen. I find what is said in this document to be frightening, and it needs serious parliamentary scrutiny.”
Crispin Black – who has worked for the Joint Intelligence Committee, and has been an Army lieutenant colonel, a military intelligence officer, a member of the Defence Intelligence Staff and a Cabinet Office intelligence analyst who briefed Number 10 – said he broadly supported the report as it tallied with the Pentagon’s over-arching vision for “full spectrum dominance” in all military matters.
“I’m all for taking down al-Qaeda websites. Shutting down enemy propaganda is a reasonable course of action. Al-Qaeda is very good at [information warfare on the internet], so we need to catch up. The US needs to lift its game,” he said.
This revolution in information warfare is merely an extension of the politics of the “neoconservative” Bush White House. Even before getting into power, key players in Team Bush were planning total military and political domination of the globe. In September 2000, the now notorious document Rebuilding America’s Defences – written by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a think-tank staffed by some of the Bush presidency’s leading lights – said that America needed a “blueprint for maintaining US global pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power-rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests”.
The PNAC was founded by *** Cheney, the vice-president; Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary; Bush’s younger brother, Jeb; Paul Wolfowitz, once Rumsfeld’s deputy and now head of the World Bank; and Lewis Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff, now indicted for perjury in America.
Rebuilding America’s Defences also spoke of taking control of the internet. A heavily censored version of the document was released under Freedom of Information legislation to the National Security Archive at George Washington University in the US.
The report admits the US is vulnerable to electronic warfare. “Networks are growing faster than we can defend them,” the report notes. “The sophistication and capability of … nation states to degrade system and network operations are rapidly increasing.”
T he report says the US military’s first priority is that the “department [of defence] must be prepared to ‘fight the net’”. The internet is seen in much the same way as an enemy state by the Pentagon because of the way it can be used to propagandise, organise and mount electronic attacks on crucial US targets. Under the heading “offensive cyber operations”, two pages outlining possible operations are blacked out.
Next, the Pentagon focuses on electronic warfare, saying it must be elevated to the heart of US military war planning. It will “provide maximum control of the electromagnetic spectrum, denying, degrading, disrupting or destroying the full spectrum of communications equipment … it is increasingly important that our forces dominate the electromagnetic spectrum with attack capabilities”. Put simply, this means US forces having the power to knock out any or all forms of telecommunications on the planet.
After electronic warfare, the US war planners turn their attention to psychological operations: “Military forces must be better prepared to use psyops in support of military operations.” The State Department, which carries out US diplomatic functions, is known to be worried that the rise of such operations could undermine American diplomacy if uncovered by foreign states. Other examples of information war listed in the report include the creation of “Truth Squads” to provide public information when negative publicity, such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, hits US operations, and the establishment of “Humanitarian Road Shows”, which will talk up American support for democracy and freedom.
The Pentagon also wants to target a “broader set of select foreign media and audiences”, with $161m set aside to help place pro-US articles in overseas media.
02 April 2006
http://www.sundayherald.com/54975
While the US remains committed to hunting down al-Qaeda operatives, it is now taking the battle to new fronts. Deep within the Pentagon, technologies are being deployed to wage the war on terror on the internet, in newspapers and even through mobile phones. Investigations editor Neil Mackay reports
IMAGINE a world where wars are fought over the internet; where TV broadcasts and newspaper reports are designed by the military to confuse the population; and where a foreign armed power can shut down your computer, phone, radio or TV at will.
In 2006, we are just about to enter such a world. This is the age of information warfare, and details of how this new military doctrine will affect everyone on the planet are contained in a report, entitled The Information Operations Roadmap, commissioned and approved by US secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld and seen by the Sunday Herald.
The Pentagon has already signed off $383 million to force through the document’s recommendations by 2009. Military and intelligence sources in the US talk of “a revolution in the concept of warfare”. The report orders three new developments in America’s approach to warfare:
Firstly, the Pentagon says it will wage war against the internet in order to dominate the realm of communications, prevent digital attacks on the US and its allies, and to have the upper hand when launching cyber-attacks against enemies.
Secondly, psychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media – from newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and personal digital assistants (PDAs) – to put out black propaganda to assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to wrong-foot the enemy
Thirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth’s electromagnetic spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication. That could see entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a switch by America.
Freedom of speech advocates are horrified at this new doctrine, but military planners and members of the intelligence community embrace the idea as a necessary development in modern combat.
Human rights lawyer John Scott, who chairs the Scottish Centre for Human Rights, said: “This is an unwelcome but natural development of what we have seen. I find what is said in this document to be frightening, and it needs serious parliamentary scrutiny.”
Crispin Black – who has worked for the Joint Intelligence Committee, and has been an Army lieutenant colonel, a military intelligence officer, a member of the Defence Intelligence Staff and a Cabinet Office intelligence analyst who briefed Number 10 – said he broadly supported the report as it tallied with the Pentagon’s over-arching vision for “full spectrum dominance” in all military matters.
“I’m all for taking down al-Qaeda websites. Shutting down enemy propaganda is a reasonable course of action. Al-Qaeda is very good at [information warfare on the internet], so we need to catch up. The US needs to lift its game,” he said.
This revolution in information warfare is merely an extension of the politics of the “neoconservative” Bush White House. Even before getting into power, key players in Team Bush were planning total military and political domination of the globe. In September 2000, the now notorious document Rebuilding America’s Defences – written by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a think-tank staffed by some of the Bush presidency’s leading lights – said that America needed a “blueprint for maintaining US global pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power-rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests”.
The PNAC was founded by *** Cheney, the vice-president; Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary; Bush’s younger brother, Jeb; Paul Wolfowitz, once Rumsfeld’s deputy and now head of the World Bank; and Lewis Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff, now indicted for perjury in America.
Rebuilding America’s Defences also spoke of taking control of the internet. A heavily censored version of the document was released under Freedom of Information legislation to the National Security Archive at George Washington University in the US.
The report admits the US is vulnerable to electronic warfare. “Networks are growing faster than we can defend them,” the report notes. “The sophistication and capability of … nation states to degrade system and network operations are rapidly increasing.”
T he report says the US military’s first priority is that the “department [of defence] must be prepared to ‘fight the net’”. The internet is seen in much the same way as an enemy state by the Pentagon because of the way it can be used to propagandise, organise and mount electronic attacks on crucial US targets. Under the heading “offensive cyber operations”, two pages outlining possible operations are blacked out.
Next, the Pentagon focuses on electronic warfare, saying it must be elevated to the heart of US military war planning. It will “provide maximum control of the electromagnetic spectrum, denying, degrading, disrupting or destroying the full spectrum of communications equipment … it is increasingly important that our forces dominate the electromagnetic spectrum with attack capabilities”. Put simply, this means US forces having the power to knock out any or all forms of telecommunications on the planet.
After electronic warfare, the US war planners turn their attention to psychological operations: “Military forces must be better prepared to use psyops in support of military operations.” The State Department, which carries out US diplomatic functions, is known to be worried that the rise of such operations could undermine American diplomacy if uncovered by foreign states. Other examples of information war listed in the report include the creation of “Truth Squads” to provide public information when negative publicity, such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, hits US operations, and the establishment of “Humanitarian Road Shows”, which will talk up American support for democracy and freedom.
The Pentagon also wants to target a “broader set of select foreign media and audiences”, with $161m set aside to help place pro-US articles in overseas media.
02 April 2006
http://www.sundayherald.com/54975
QUOTE
First, on the squibs issue, I would like to see those CD videos in slow -mo to really make a comparison with the WTC 1 & 2 squibs.
I can't help you there I'm afraid.
However, you have still offered no explanation as to the mechanism that created the material of the 'squibs' if they were due only to pressurised air.
Also, it seems the air wasn't only moving downwards:
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/daily/20...C_survivor_wind
What are the flashes seen in this video?
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
Common sense - I'm still waiting for the evidence used to determine the width and depth of the south face hole on WTC7.
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
Common sense - I'm still waiting for the evidence used to determine the width and depth of the south face hole on WTC7.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 07:20 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 2 2006, 12:36 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 1 2006, 09:13 PM)
QUOTE
Just for your information the redundant electrical systems works against your theory. The redundancy is for safety and damage control not multiple large arcs. In other words, it is set up to stop what witnesses described.
No, it is set up to reduce transformer failures caused by too much demand on supply thus heating them up. It most certainly was not designed to protect from massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
Transformer failure from heating would be considered damage control along with massive short circuiting and/or physical damage to the transformer.
So how do you think a Circuit Breaker Works?
Hint: The simplest circuit protection device is the fuse.
You only need to cause a flash. Why do you ignore this? A flash can occure well within the time the circuit trips completely. This happens all ther time in powerline falures. How do you explain why powerlines flash even though they have breakers? Or are there no protections built into powerlines?
I am not ignoring the fact an outside power line flashes. I asked for a reasonable explanation not a slight probability of occurrence. All the examples you have pictures of are outdoors. Indoor electrical systems have more safeguards so people are not injured and the building does not start on fire. Take an outdoor high power wire without insulation for example (like your website picture), you would not use this indoors. There is a big difference between indoor and outdoor transformers . I am just pointing out you and the “Truth Squad" are not really trying to find the truth.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 2 2006, 06:05 PM)
Firstly, the Pentagon says it will wage war against the internet in order to dominate the realm of communications, prevent digital attacks on the US and its allies, and to have the upper hand when launching cyber-attacks against enemies.
Secondly, psychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media – from newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and personal digital assistants (PDAs) – to put out black propaganda to assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to wrong-foot the enemy
as 'the enemy' strengthens and prepares for war, it becomes obvious who 'the enemy' really is.
i guess it should really be no surprise, as we've been living in the gutenburg gulag for centuries, and, then the wireless information TKO of mental independence tightened the yoke, and now, the timeless internet will freeze the world into a stasis determined by the usual suspects(merovingian bloodlines, trying to return us to the ten kingdoms of atlantis and 'utopia').
just recently, the three 'leaders' of north america, bush, harper and fox, gathered on the steps of a mexican pyramid(where the atlantians(mayans) used to sacrifice babies to the sun god), and announced that the surrounding ruins were a symbol of their desire to bring about a new order for north america.
meanwhile, not far away, a canadian couple was brutally murdered with their throats slashed, and the gruesome pictures were 'accidentally' leaked and published on the front page of a mexican tabloid, and then a canadian paper also decided it would be 'good' to publish these images. all coinciding with the 'photo op' at the pi-ra-mid
that's a public sacrifice to the sun god.
now, THAT'S 'conspiracy theory'.
bombs bringing down the towers is OBVIOUS(sorry newtonnjd, i can't agree with you that it's an unknown, LOL! i do agree an investigation is needed to indict all the dicts who are pulling a massive psy-ops on the people of the world)
Secondly, psychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media – from newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and personal digital assistants (PDAs) – to put out black propaganda to assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to wrong-foot the enemy
as 'the enemy' strengthens and prepares for war, it becomes obvious who 'the enemy' really is.
i guess it should really be no surprise, as we've been living in the gutenburg gulag for centuries, and, then the wireless information TKO of mental independence tightened the yoke, and now, the timeless internet will freeze the world into a stasis determined by the usual suspects(merovingian bloodlines, trying to return us to the ten kingdoms of atlantis and 'utopia').
just recently, the three 'leaders' of north america, bush, harper and fox, gathered on the steps of a mexican pyramid(where the atlantians(mayans) used to sacrifice babies to the sun god), and announced that the surrounding ruins were a symbol of their desire to bring about a new order for north america.
meanwhile, not far away, a canadian couple was brutally murdered with their throats slashed, and the gruesome pictures were 'accidentally' leaked and published on the front page of a mexican tabloid, and then a canadian paper also decided it would be 'good' to publish these images. all coinciding with the 'photo op' at the pi-ra-mid
that's a public sacrifice to the sun god.
now, THAT'S 'conspiracy theory'.
bombs bringing down the towers is OBVIOUS(sorry newtonnjd, i can't agree with you that it's an unknown, LOL! i do agree an investigation is needed to indict all the dicts who are pulling a massive psy-ops on the people of the world)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 08:57 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 2 2006, 11:17 AM)
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 2 2006, 05:13 AM)
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
Controlled demolition does not require the columns to bend or buckle. Gravity driven collapse does. Your are good at pointing out the problems with the gravity driven collapse theory.
Where do you find evidence the NIST said the failures were all in the column strength? I saw it say it was in the bolt connections and have posted the photos from the report showing so. Please support this claim with evidence.
CD or not, the evidence shows bolt/connection failures for the majority of seperating steel members.
First, show were NIST explains the failure mode of the core columns. All I read in the report was redistributing loads and weakened columns, then global collapse ensued:
6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1
The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 144-5/194-5)
6.14.3 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 2
The south exterior wall displaced downward following the aircraft impact, but did not displace further until the east wall became unstable 43 min later. The inward bowing of the east wall, due to the inward pull of the sagging floors, caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels and resulted in the east wall columns becoming unstable. The instability progressed horizontally across the entire east face. The east wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed them to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels.
The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the east and south as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls, and increased the gravity load on the weakened east core columns. As with WTC 1, once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 145-6/195-6)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 03:41 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 2 2006, 06:57 AM)
Speaking of which: Is there a single structural engineer in the entire world who has said that they are just fine with the Fairy Tale version of the collapse of WTC 7?
** I don't think the paper is even publicly available, yet, or I imagine I would have read about that fact, here.
Dr. Miller, Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction
David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report
Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.
John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University
Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response
James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland
Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=
So the short answer is yes... many have come out for normal collapse by fire and some even pointedly against the mass conspiracy lunacy.
Again, where is the civil engineer/structural engineer coming out FOR the mass murder conspiracy lunacy.
This was all shown to you before. You just have a selective memory/bias among other things.
More desperation from a pope?
Most of these names I recognize as reviewers for the journal that BZ's paper, incorporating what they call "elastic dynamic analysis", and we used to call, in sophomore physics (and calculus/ODE) classes, solutions to the spring equation.
BZ's paper was about WTC 1 & 2, not WTC 7, and not at all credible, anyway, as a serious effort for understanding the collapses. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it was reasonably effective being used as a piece of propaganda, though it would be mere speculation on my part to assume that that was their purpose.
If you can actually produce the name of a single civil engineer that supports the Fairy Tale version of WTC 7's collapse, why don't you post their name and, if possible, their contact info? Maybe we can get them to elaborate, on this forum, why they think the way they do.
In fact, if you do get in touch with these gents, would you mind asking them if they still support BZ's paper? Would they publish it, again? Do point out the criticisms, please.
Obviously, if they just wave their hands by telling us that NIST's hand waving is good enough for them, we can immediately dismiss them as not serious.
Um, saying "we do not support Professor Jones' conlusion", without making any effort to address his arguments, does not mean much. It's probably just a CYA disclaimer incase they take heat for Jones' views. Plus it does not paint a fair picture of the reception he received amongst those at the university that he's actually given talks to.
Also, I'm talking about structural engineers standing up and directly addressing the CD arguments, not simply supporting the OCT at some point in the past.
Good point.
BTW, when I first heard of Professor Jones, my first thought was "BYU's poor graduate students". Why? Because I thought it inevitable that, if Jones continued in a high profile way, lackeys within the US gov. funding apparatus would start turning the screws on BYU's physics department. (I didn't think the engineering departments would get hit, but who knows?) Many professors have tenure. Graduate students obviously never have tenure.
A few weeks ago, when I spoke to a professor about entering grad school for physics, he told me something kind of depressing. Most people, I would guess (at least that have been to college) have heard about "publish or perish".
However, what this physicist told me is that tenure depends on one ability to get grant money. Tenure!!
He reiterated "Money drives everything."
I'm pretty sure this is not universally true, but apparently it is at least true for experimental scientists that have significant budgetary requirements for experimental apparatuses.
This makes my point, what do they have to lose? And they don't even do this much...
This makes my point, what do they have to lose? And they don't even do this much...
Well I don't agree. I would choose life for my family in a dangerous world than no life at all. We are nowhere near a stage where life cannot be enjoyed. I would never risk the safety of my family to speak out.
Then what are you doing here? Maybe they're watching you and will kill you or your family? The fact that you're here doesn't support your statement.
But the point is not everyone is the same. Even if YOU wouldn't I would. Even if 10-20-90% wouldn't speak out 10% would. Where are even the 10%???
Why would I, as a tax payer, want to satisfy you're suspicions with my money? What if the UFO people what to prove the buildings weren't taken out by aliens? What if some scholar somewhere says he can prove Satan brought down the towers. Sound silly? Sorry but that's who silly you sound to me.
I want an investigation into how the intel was used by the neo-cons. There is mondo evidence for this and yet we still don't have an investigation. If the republicans manage to conflate this myth with the real conspiracy we will never get an investigation into either. They will poison the well and call us all nuts. Sorry but any investigation which hurts the investigation which there IS PLENTY of evidence for should be fought against with passion. Get some good evidence first then ask for an investigation.
Why would I, as a tax payer, want to satisfy you're suspicions with my money? What if the UFO people what to prove the buildings weren't taken out by aliens? What if some scholar somewhere says he can prove Satan brought down the towers. Sound silly? Sorry but that's who silly you sound to me.
I want an investigation into how the intel was used by the neo-cons. There is mondo evidence for this and yet we still don't have an investigation. If the republicans manage to conflate this myth with the real conspiracy we will never get an investigation into either. They will poison the well and call us all nuts. Sorry but any investigation which hurts the investigation which there IS PLENTY of evidence for should be fought against with passion. Get some good evidence first then ask for an investigation.
CDs commonly cause central kinks, so to claim that makes it look less like a CD is rather amusing.
And "all the evidence" points to fires?? Again, please let Dr Sunder know this is the case, as he still "doesn't know" why 7 collapsed.
Careful, you're starting to sound like that moron faux. I don't make amusing claims and I haven't called your claims "Amusing". If you have a problem with something I said then point it out and I'll clear it up or retract it.
It's not just the kink. It's the placement of the kink. I was clear on this so I don't appreciate the insult. The kink was in the exact place the the fires below were and the penthouse fell. What do you call this? Another lucky effect which just happen to look like collapse by fire? First the fireman get lucky saying the building was going to fall then the building just happen to look like the building was going to fall... There were also no multiple explosions going off all over the building like CD's.
If I were to call something amusing I would say "please let Dr Sunder know " is a riot since he already knows. Your refusal to even read the preliminary report and make comments like that are a rib buster.
But I understand your frustration. Somewhere deep down inside you know I present powerful arguments and the only tactic you have is to make them sound outrageous without articulating why. That's "a faux reply" your pulling.
In actual fact the evidence is that the collapses replicated the MEASURABLE physical characteristics of CDs
Was that you? You didn't say "IF the WTC7 were blown up it would have been a far higher quality demolition than those little guys."
Was that you? You didn't say "IF the WTC7 were blown up it would have been a far higher quality demolition than those little guys."
The kink is not a difference. Is that all you have?
Why did you just ignore the Pull page? Why did you ignore the fireman's testimony? Why did you ignore the videos of the south side? Why did you ignore the fires under the penthouse? Why did you ignore the sequence of collapse? My goodness, you ignored so much evidence in that statement I have to ask why? Was this another "faux?"
Please don't insult anyone's intelligence.
That's not a reason. Civil engineering journals don't peer review papers because of political views in other countries. That's just absurd on it's face. You are now seeing how absurd this whole idea is. You are left with an absurd rationalization to account for the lack of civil engineers in other countries who haven't passed a peer reviewed paper on this.
That's not a reason. Civil engineering journals don't peer review papers because of political views in other countries. That's just absurd on it's face. You are now seeing how absurd this whole idea is. You are left with an absurd rationalization to account for the lack of civil engineers in other countries who haven't passed a peer reviewed paper on this.
Um, saying "we do not support Professor Jones' conlusion", without making any effort to address his arguments, does not mean much. It's probably just a CYA disclaimer in case they take heat for Jones' views. Plus it does not paint a fair picture of the reception he received amongst those at the university that he's actually given talks to.
Also, I'm talking about structural engineers standing up and directly addressing the CD arguments, not simply supporting the OCT at some point in the past.
Dr miller from Jones own university said his paper ignore the evidence. But this is like saying UFO's exist because astronomers haven't spent there valuable time debunking them. First Jones has to pass a peer reviewed paper in a civil engineering journal, then they waste time passing a paper saying why hes wrong. You're putting the cart before the horse then blaming the horse for not pulling the cart.
Even YOU can debunk Jones paper. Was there a 212 degree F pyroclastic flow that day? If you say no then you have debunked the paper. You need go no further.
** I don't think the paper is even publicly available, yet, or I imagine I would have read about that fact, here.
Dr. Miller, Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction
David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report
Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.
John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University
Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response
James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland
Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=
So the short answer is yes... many have come out for normal collapse by fire and some even pointedly against the mass conspiracy lunacy.
Again, where is the civil engineer/structural engineer coming out FOR the mass murder conspiracy lunacy.
This was all shown to you before. You just have a selective memory/bias among other things.
More desperation from a pope?
Most of these names I recognize as reviewers for the journal that BZ's paper, incorporating what they call "elastic dynamic analysis", and we used to call, in sophomore physics (and calculus/ODE) classes, solutions to the spring equation.
BZ's paper was about WTC 1 & 2, not WTC 7, and not at all credible, anyway, as a serious effort for understanding the collapses. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it was reasonably effective being used as a piece of propaganda, though it would be mere speculation on my part to assume that that was their purpose.
If you can actually produce the name of a single civil engineer that supports the Fairy Tale version of WTC 7's collapse, why don't you post their name and, if possible, their contact info? Maybe we can get them to elaborate, on this forum, why they think the way they do.
In fact, if you do get in touch with these gents, would you mind asking them if they still support BZ's paper? Would they publish it, again? Do point out the criticisms, please.
Obviously, if they just wave their hands by telling us that NIST's hand waving is good enough for them, we can immediately dismiss them as not serious.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 2 2006, 05:57 PM)
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If the CD hypothesis is so ridiculous, wouldn't you expect some of these structural engineers to want to stand up and put these theories to bed? And they have. Not only from the same university Jones teaches at but others who have passed peer reviewed papers saying the building COULD collapse from impact/fire. |
Um, saying "we do not support Professor Jones' conlusion", without making any effort to address his arguments, does not mean much. It's probably just a CYA disclaimer incase they take heat for Jones' views. Plus it does not paint a fair picture of the reception he received amongst those at the university that he's actually given talks to.
Also, I'm talking about structural engineers standing up and directly addressing the CD arguments, not simply supporting the OCT at some point in the past.
Good point.
BTW, when I first heard of Professor Jones, my first thought was "BYU's poor graduate students". Why? Because I thought it inevitable that, if Jones continued in a high profile way, lackeys within the US gov. funding apparatus would start turning the screws on BYU's physics department. (I didn't think the engineering departments would get hit, but who knows?) Many professors have tenure. Graduate students obviously never have tenure.
A few weeks ago, when I spoke to a professor about entering grad school for physics, he told me something kind of depressing. Most people, I would guess (at least that have been to college) have heard about "publish or perish".
However, what this physicist told me is that tenure depends on one ability to get grant money. Tenure!!
He reiterated "Money drives everything."
I'm pretty sure this is not universally true, but apparently it is at least true for experimental scientists that have significant budgetary requirements for experimental apparatuses.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 2 2006, 02:26 PM)
Metamars
I'll be going to the beach soon so I don't have time reply your lengthy post above, no matter only two important questions come to mind:
1) Where can we read Gordon's paper?
2) What qualifications does Gordon have that any civil engineers should bother to read or respond to it? A fundamentalist Christian with out any credentials can write a paper supporting creation science but if no biologist wastes his or her time writing a reply it doesn't add legitimacy to their views.
Len
PS I remember your misunderstanding of proofs from apollohoax too! LOL
PPS When are you going to take up your own challenge and offer photographic proof of your "spire collapse" theory.
I don't know the status of Gordon's paper, you have to ask him. His background is listed on Scholars for 911 Truth.
The "proofs" offered at apollohoax tend to be as convincing as the "proofs" offered here.
Are you still claiming that to disprove a theory, you have to prove another one, in it's stead? That may make for good apollohoaxian logic (pun semi-intended), but scientists - any scientist - should be able to set you straight on that.
I absolutely agree that the final arbiters of Gordon's paper (or BZ's, for that matter) will be engineers. Obviously, they can only act as such if they read these papers. Lol finding a biologist Ph.D. who supports creationism. Yes, there are two or three, but they are in a tiny minority.
Fortunately for biologists, they can intelligently comment on creationism, without reading papers on it, because it fundamentally contradicts a huge mass of accumulated evidence.*
What is the huge mass of accumulated evidence for the NIST'ian hand-waving re inevitable global collapse? If they actually had any evidence, why are they keeping it secret?
Their argument - as you know very well - is that they have shown local collapse, which is a necessary condition for global collapse. It is not a suffcient condition (not without proof, anyway), but they just wave their hands and say, in essence "Well, there you go!".
Of course, it's helps their hand-waving case to lie about not seeing evidence for CD.
BTW, I thoroughly approve of going to the beach, today, and wish I could follow suit. At least you and I agree on something.
* This is off-topic, but: In defense of religious folks, who are looking for the hand of the Divine without denying the massive evidence for evolution, I note that (at least as far as I know), the theory of evolution by natural selection (plus sexual selection, etc.) (as opposed to the fact of evolution, itself) which everybody assumes works exclusively through DNA selection, has not been proven to be the full story, ito of rate of evolution.
I suspect there's no way to prove this short of massive simulation, which is quite impossible, at present. (Speaking of which, the current Scientific American has an interesting article on using quantum knots, instead of quantum dots, for quantum computers).
My own personal (not scientific) belief is that evolution is constrained not just by physics and pure chance, but also by conciousness associated with at least the more highly evolved organisms, as well as by archetypes acting as evolutionary "strange attractors", if you will, presumably established by Mr. Big, Himself.
(If anybody feels the need to refer to my personal, unscientific beliefs as Fairy Tales, go right ahead. You may be absolutely correct, after all.)
Over twenty-five years ago, there were experiments done by Dr. Rex Stanford (a psychologist/parapsychologist, currently as St. Johns' University) on what he called Psi Mediated Instrumented Response, which pointed to unconscious psi abilities being used, for fulfilling good and, hmmm, let's call it "not-so-good", needs and desires. His results, if valid, surely have implications for the rate of evolution, as one very common need and desire is to live.
I note that in the above, I have mostly been thinking of biological evolution, and not what might be termed chemical evolution that led to the first cells. Everybody knows about Stanly Miller's experiment, but IMHO, this is only evidence, far short of proof, of the notion that a fully functioning cell can come about purely through an evolution that reduces to physics + chemistry + chance.
As for physicists who don't gag at the notion of psi phenomena, their numbers include Nobel laureate Dr. Brian Josephson. Most probably do gag, but not all.
Finally, I note that some scientists and engineers believe in psi phenomena, but believe that it's just some poorly understood, but very physical phenomenon, utilizing very low frequency EM radiation. In fact, I personally know a brilliant EE who believes exactly that. He also believe's the government Fairy Tale re WTC collapses, but nobody is perfect.
I'll be going to the beach soon so I don't have time reply your lengthy post above, no matter only two important questions come to mind:
1) Where can we read Gordon's paper?
2) What qualifications does Gordon have that any civil engineers should bother to read or respond to it? A fundamentalist Christian with out any credentials can write a paper supporting creation science but if no biologist wastes his or her time writing a reply it doesn't add legitimacy to their views.
Len
PS I remember your misunderstanding of proofs from apollohoax too! LOL
PPS When are you going to take up your own challenge and offer photographic proof of your "spire collapse" theory.
I don't know the status of Gordon's paper, you have to ask him. His background is listed on Scholars for 911 Truth.
The "proofs" offered at apollohoax tend to be as convincing as the "proofs" offered here.
Are you still claiming that to disprove a theory, you have to prove another one, in it's stead? That may make for good apollohoaxian logic (pun semi-intended), but scientists - any scientist - should be able to set you straight on that.
I absolutely agree that the final arbiters of Gordon's paper (or BZ's, for that matter) will be engineers. Obviously, they can only act as such if they read these papers. Lol finding a biologist Ph.D. who supports creationism. Yes, there are two or three, but they are in a tiny minority.
Fortunately for biologists, they can intelligently comment on creationism, without reading papers on it, because it fundamentally contradicts a huge mass of accumulated evidence.*
What is the huge mass of accumulated evidence for the NIST'ian hand-waving re inevitable global collapse? If they actually had any evidence, why are they keeping it secret?
Their argument - as you know very well - is that they have shown local collapse, which is a necessary condition for global collapse. It is not a suffcient condition (not without proof, anyway), but they just wave their hands and say, in essence "Well, there you go!".
Of course, it's helps their hand-waving case to lie about not seeing evidence for CD.
BTW, I thoroughly approve of going to the beach, today, and wish I could follow suit. At least you and I agree on something.
* This is off-topic, but: In defense of religious folks, who are looking for the hand of the Divine without denying the massive evidence for evolution, I note that (at least as far as I know), the theory of evolution by natural selection (plus sexual selection, etc.) (as opposed to the fact of evolution, itself) which everybody assumes works exclusively through DNA selection, has not been proven to be the full story, ito of rate of evolution.
I suspect there's no way to prove this short of massive simulation, which is quite impossible, at present. (Speaking of which, the current Scientific American has an interesting article on using quantum knots, instead of quantum dots, for quantum computers).
My own personal (not scientific) belief is that evolution is constrained not just by physics and pure chance, but also by conciousness associated with at least the more highly evolved organisms, as well as by archetypes acting as evolutionary "strange attractors", if you will, presumably established by Mr. Big, Himself.
(If anybody feels the need to refer to my personal, unscientific beliefs as Fairy Tales, go right ahead. You may be absolutely correct, after all.)
Over twenty-five years ago, there were experiments done by Dr. Rex Stanford (a psychologist/parapsychologist, currently as St. Johns' University) on what he called Psi Mediated Instrumented Response, which pointed to unconscious psi abilities being used, for fulfilling good and, hmmm, let's call it "not-so-good", needs and desires. His results, if valid, surely have implications for the rate of evolution, as one very common need and desire is to live.
I note that in the above, I have mostly been thinking of biological evolution, and not what might be termed chemical evolution that led to the first cells. Everybody knows about Stanly Miller's experiment, but IMHO, this is only evidence, far short of proof, of the notion that a fully functioning cell can come about purely through an evolution that reduces to physics + chemistry + chance.
As for physicists who don't gag at the notion of psi phenomena, their numbers include Nobel laureate Dr. Brian Josephson. Most probably do gag, but not all.
Finally, I note that some scientists and engineers believe in psi phenomena, but believe that it's just some poorly understood, but very physical phenomenon, utilizing very low frequency EM radiation. In fact, I personally know a brilliant EE who believes exactly that. He also believe's the government Fairy Tale re WTC collapses, but nobody is perfect.
Transformer failures --- Today I went web trawling about transformers and failure modes. First of all, power transformers come in many sizes and both large and small are found inside buildings. Because of transformer failures, modern design practices and codes strongly encourage placing these outside, as recent office building construction nearby demonstrates. So, in no particular order:
San Francisco Chronicle, 2005 Aug 20 --- Explosion rocks downtown San Francisco ... an underground electric transformer ...
The New York Times, 1985 Jul 20 --- ... fire in an electrical switching vault in the Seagram Building ...
Jackson Sun, 2006 Feb 22 --- Underground transformer blew up ...
Reno Gazette-Journal, 2003 Jul 29 --- transformer explosion ... sent flaming oil through the streets ... fireball .. smoke plume visible for miles ... "bang" ... "sounded like a truck hit the building"
The New York Times, 2003 Apr 26 --- ... transformer explosion in the basement ... three large windows were blown out ...
TheINDYChannel.com, 2004 Dec 31 --- Underground transformer caught fire ... "muffled explosion" ...
CNN.com, 2000 Sep 14 --- ... some popping sounds: a series of explosions, sparks flying...
TheGonzalesWeeklyOnline, 2005 Jul 29 --- ... transformer ... loud explosion ...
LaurelFireDepartment --- ... explosion of transformer ...
San Francisco Chronicle, 2005 Aug 20 --- Explosion rocks downtown San Francisco ... an underground electric transformer ...
The New York Times, 1985 Jul 20 --- ... fire in an electrical switching vault in the Seagram Building ...
Jackson Sun, 2006 Feb 22 --- Underground transformer blew up ...
Reno Gazette-Journal, 2003 Jul 29 --- transformer explosion ... sent flaming oil through the streets ... fireball .. smoke plume visible for miles ... "bang" ... "sounded like a truck hit the building"
The New York Times, 2003 Apr 26 --- ... transformer explosion in the basement ... three large windows were blown out ...
TheINDYChannel.com, 2004 Dec 31 --- Underground transformer caught fire ... "muffled explosion" ...
CNN.com, 2000 Sep 14 --- ... some popping sounds: a series of explosions, sparks flying...
TheGonzalesWeeklyOnline, 2005 Jul 29 --- ... transformer ... loud explosion ...
LaurelFireDepartment --- ... explosion of transformer ...
QUOTE
And who is going to believe a reporter citing an anonymous source?
This makes my point, what do they have to lose? And they don't even do this much...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And who is going to believe a reporter citing an anonymous source? |
This makes my point, what do they have to lose? And they don't even do this much...
Well I don't agree. I would choose life for my family in a dangerous world than no life at all. We are nowhere near a stage where life cannot be enjoyed. I would never risk the safety of my family to speak out.
Then what are you doing here? Maybe they're watching you and will kill you or your family? The fact that you're here doesn't support your statement.
But the point is not everyone is the same. Even if YOU wouldn't I would. Even if 10-20-90% wouldn't speak out 10% would. Where are even the 10%???
QUOTE
But I am not claiming CD is 100% proven. It is my opinion that it's by far the most likely explanation, but I am not in possession of the truth. What is needed is for the CD hypothesis to at least be investigated.
Why would I, as a tax payer, want to satisfy you're suspicions with my money? What if the UFO people what to prove the buildings weren't taken out by aliens? What if some scholar somewhere says he can prove Satan brought down the towers. Sound silly? Sorry but that's who silly you sound to me.
I want an investigation into how the intel was used by the neo-cons. There is mondo evidence for this and yet we still don't have an investigation. If the republicans manage to conflate this myth with the real conspiracy we will never get an investigation into either. They will poison the well and call us all nuts. Sorry but any investigation which hurts the investigation which there IS PLENTY of evidence for should be fought against with passion. Get some good evidence first then ask for an investigation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But I am not claiming CD is 100% proven. It is my opinion that it's by far the most likely explanation, but I am not in possession of the truth. What is needed is for the CD hypothesis to at least be investigated. |
Why would I, as a tax payer, want to satisfy you're suspicions with my money? What if the UFO people what to prove the buildings weren't taken out by aliens? What if some scholar somewhere says he can prove Satan brought down the towers. Sound silly? Sorry but that's who silly you sound to me.
I want an investigation into how the intel was used by the neo-cons. There is mondo evidence for this and yet we still don't have an investigation. If the republicans manage to conflate this myth with the real conspiracy we will never get an investigation into either. They will poison the well and call us all nuts. Sorry but any investigation which hurts the investigation which there IS PLENTY of evidence for should be fought against with passion. Get some good evidence first then ask for an investigation.
CDs commonly cause central kinks, so to claim that makes it look less like a CD is rather amusing.
And "all the evidence" points to fires?? Again, please let Dr Sunder know this is the case, as he still "doesn't know" why 7 collapsed.
Careful, you're starting to sound like that moron faux. I don't make amusing claims and I haven't called your claims "Amusing". If you have a problem with something I said then point it out and I'll clear it up or retract it.
It's not just the kink. It's the placement of the kink. I was clear on this so I don't appreciate the insult. The kink was in the exact place the the fires below were and the penthouse fell. What do you call this? Another lucky effect which just happen to look like collapse by fire? First the fireman get lucky saying the building was going to fall then the building just happen to look like the building was going to fall... There were also no multiple explosions going off all over the building like CD's.
If I were to call something amusing I would say "please let Dr Sunder know " is a riot since he already knows. Your refusal to even read the preliminary report and make comments like that are a rib buster.
But I understand your frustration. Somewhere deep down inside you know I present powerful arguments and the only tactic you have is to make them sound outrageous without articulating why. That's "a faux reply" your pulling.
QUOTE
Where have I said it's obvious? I think it's obvious that CD would fit and should be investigated as a possibility. But it's not a black and white issue and I never claimed it was.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where have I said it's obvious? I think it's obvious that CD would fit and should be investigated as a possibility. But it's not a black and white issue and I never claimed it was. |
In actual fact the evidence is that the collapses replicated the MEASURABLE physical characteristics of CDs
QUOTE
Damn straight, WTC7 was a far higher quality demolition than those little guys.
Was that you? You didn't say "IF the WTC7 were blown up it would have been a far higher quality demolition than those little guys."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Damn straight, WTC7 was a far higher quality demolition than those little guys. |
Was that you? You didn't say "IF the WTC7 were blown up it would have been a far higher quality demolition than those little guys."
The kink is not a difference. Is that all you have?
Why did you just ignore the Pull page? Why did you ignore the fireman's testimony? Why did you ignore the videos of the south side? Why did you ignore the fires under the penthouse? Why did you ignore the sequence of collapse? My goodness, you ignored so much evidence in that statement I have to ask why? Was this another "faux?"
Please don't insult anyone's intelligence.
QUOTE
Because in the US it would be ignored as "America bashing"? They probably realise it would be a fruitless effort and wouldn't change anything outside their own country. They know the US is a lost cause in terms of open and honest investigation.
That's not a reason. Civil engineering journals don't peer review papers because of political views in other countries. That's just absurd on it's face. You are now seeing how absurd this whole idea is. You are left with an absurd rationalization to account for the lack of civil engineers in other countries who haven't passed a peer reviewed paper on this.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because in the US it would be ignored as "America bashing"? They probably realise it would be a fruitless effort and wouldn't change anything outside their own country. They know the US is a lost cause in terms of open and honest investigation. |
That's not a reason. Civil engineering journals don't peer review papers because of political views in other countries. That's just absurd on it's face. You are now seeing how absurd this whole idea is. You are left with an absurd rationalization to account for the lack of civil engineers in other countries who haven't passed a peer reviewed paper on this.
Um, saying "we do not support Professor Jones' conlusion", without making any effort to address his arguments, does not mean much. It's probably just a CYA disclaimer in case they take heat for Jones' views. Plus it does not paint a fair picture of the reception he received amongst those at the university that he's actually given talks to.
Also, I'm talking about structural engineers standing up and directly addressing the CD arguments, not simply supporting the OCT at some point in the past.
Dr miller from Jones own university said his paper ignore the evidence. But this is like saying UFO's exist because astronomers haven't spent there valuable time debunking them. First Jones has to pass a peer reviewed paper in a civil engineering journal, then they waste time passing a paper saying why hes wrong. You're putting the cart before the horse then blaming the horse for not pulling the cart.
Even YOU can debunk Jones paper. Was there a 212 degree F pyroclastic flow that day? If you say no then you have debunked the paper. You need go no further.
For now, let me repeat myself..
I'm still waiting for the evidence used to determine the width and depth of the south face hole on WTC7.
I'm still waiting for the evidence used to determine the width and depth of the south face hole on WTC7.
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 2 2006, 03:45 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 03:41 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 2 2006, 06:57 AM)
Speaking of which: Is there a single structural engineer in the entire world who has said that they are just fine with the Fairy Tale version of the collapse of WTC 7?
** I don't think the paper is even publicly available, yet, or I imagine I would have read about that fact, here.
Dr. Miller, Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction
David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report
Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.
John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University
Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response
James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland
Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=
So the short answer is yes... many have come out for normal collapse by fire and some even pointedly against the mass conspiracy lunacy.
Again, where is the civil engineer/structural engineer coming out FOR the mass murder conspiracy lunacy.
This was all shown to you before. You just have a selective memory/bias among other things.
More desperation from a pope?
Most of these names I recognize as reviewers for the journal that BZ's paper, incorporating what they call "elastic dynamic analysis", and we used to call, in sophomore physics (and calculus/ODE) classes, solutions to the spring equation.
BZ's paper was about WTC 1 & 2, not WTC 7, and not at all credible, anyway, as a serious effort for understanding the collapses. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it was reasonably effective being used as a piece of propaganda, though it would be mere speculation on my part to assume that that was their purpose.
If you can actually produce the name of a single civil engineer that supports the Fairy Tale version of WTC 7's collapse, why don't you post their name and, if possible, their contact info? Maybe we can get them to elaborate, on this forum, why they think the way they do.
In fact, if you do get in touch with these gents, would you mind asking them if they still support BZ's paper? Would they publish it, again? Do point out the criticisms, please.
Obviously, if they just wave their hands by telling us that NIST's hand waving is good enough for them, we can immediately dismiss them as not serious.
You're a real tool. What does this say...
many have come out for normal collapse by fire
Did I or did I not let everyone know they were for normal collapse. Because after I say that I said this...
and some even pointedly against the mass conspiracy lunacy.
Don't blame me for your poor reading comprehention skills. Even a fringe nutcase like you should know how to read. There are both civil engineers who are for normal collapse AND civil engineers who debunked your lunacy... They're from the PM debunking article.
Your a real MORON...
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
Controlled demolition does not require the columns to bend or buckle. Gravity driven collapse does. Your are good at pointing out the problems with the gravity driven collapse theory.
Where do you find evidence the NIST said the failures were all in the column strength? I saw it say it was in the bolt connections and have posted the photos from the report showing so. Please support this claim with evidence.
CD or not, the evidence shows bolt/connection failures for the majority of seperating steel members.
First, show were NIST explains the failure mode of the core columns. All I read in the report was redistributing loads and weakened columns, then global collapse ensued:
6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1
The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 144-5/194-5)
6.14.3 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 2
The south exterior wall displaced downward following the aircraft impact, but did not displace further until the east wall became unstable 43 min later. The inward bowing of the east wall, due to the inward pull of the sagging floors, caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels and resulted in the east wall columns becoming unstable. The instability progressed horizontally across the entire east face. The east wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed them to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels.
The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the east and south as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls, and increased the gravity load on the weakened east core columns. As with WTC 1, once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 145-6/195-6)
That only accounts for what happened on the impact/fire floors. Correct me if I'm wrong but we were talking about AFTER globle collapse begain. Under the impact floors the NIST said most of the bolts/connections failed. They even had photos illustrating this...
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
Controlled demolition does not require the columns to bend or buckle. Gravity driven collapse does. Your are good at pointing out the problems with the gravity driven collapse theory.
Where do you find evidence the NIST said the failures were all in the column strength? I saw it say it was in the bolt connections and have posted the photos from the report showing so. Please support this claim with evidence.
CD or not, the evidence shows bolt/connection failures for the majority of seperating steel members.
First, show were NIST explains the failure mode of the core columns. All I read in the report was redistributing loads and weakened columns, then global collapse ensued:
6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1
The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 144-5/194-5)
6.14.3 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 2
The south exterior wall displaced downward following the aircraft impact, but did not displace further until the east wall became unstable 43 min later. The inward bowing of the east wall, due to the inward pull of the sagging floors, caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels and resulted in the east wall columns becoming unstable. The instability progressed horizontally across the entire east face. The east wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed them to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels.
The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the east and south as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls, and increased the gravity load on the weakened east core columns. As with WTC 1, once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 145-6/195-6)
That only accounts for what happened on the impact/fire floors. Correct me if I'm wrong but we were talking about AFTER globle collapse begain. Under the impact floors the NIST said most of the bolts/connections failed. They even had photos illustrating this...
Do you have a reference?
From what I read NIST did not want to touch the collapse except for what I quoted above.
** I don't think the paper is even publicly available, yet, or I imagine I would have read about that fact, here.
Dr. Miller, Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction
David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report
Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.
John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University
Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response
James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland
Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=
So the short answer is yes... many have come out for normal collapse by fire and some even pointedly against the mass conspiracy lunacy.
Again, where is the civil engineer/structural engineer coming out FOR the mass murder conspiracy lunacy.
This was all shown to you before. You just have a selective memory/bias among other things.
More desperation from a pope?
Most of these names I recognize as reviewers for the journal that BZ's paper, incorporating what they call "elastic dynamic analysis", and we used to call, in sophomore physics (and calculus/ODE) classes, solutions to the spring equation.
BZ's paper was about WTC 1 & 2, not WTC 7, and not at all credible, anyway, as a serious effort for understanding the collapses. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it was reasonably effective being used as a piece of propaganda, though it would be mere speculation on my part to assume that that was their purpose.
If you can actually produce the name of a single civil engineer that supports the Fairy Tale version of WTC 7's collapse, why don't you post their name and, if possible, their contact info? Maybe we can get them to elaborate, on this forum, why they think the way they do.
In fact, if you do get in touch with these gents, would you mind asking them if they still support BZ's paper? Would they publish it, again? Do point out the criticisms, please.
Obviously, if they just wave their hands by telling us that NIST's hand waving is good enough for them, we can immediately dismiss them as not serious.
You're a real tool. What does this say...
many have come out for normal collapse by fire
Did I or did I not let everyone know they were for normal collapse. Because after I say that I said this...
and some even pointedly against the mass conspiracy lunacy.
Don't blame me for your poor reading comprehention skills. Even a fringe nutcase like you should know how to read. There are both civil engineers who are for normal collapse AND civil engineers who debunked your lunacy... They're from the PM debunking article.
Your a real MORON...
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Apr 2 2006, 07:01 PM)
Transformer failures --- Today I went web trawling about transformers and failure modes. First of all, power transformers come in many sizes and both large and small are found inside buildings. Because of transformer failures, modern design practices and codes strongly encourage placing these outside, as recent office building construction nearby demonstrates. So, in no particular order:
San Francisco Chronicle, 2005 Aug 20 --- Explosion rocks downtown San Francisco ... an underground electric transformer ...
The New York Times, 1985 Jul 20 --- ... fire in an electrical switching vault in the Seagram Building ...
Jackson Sun, 2006 Feb 22 --- Underground transformer blew up ...
Reno Gazette-Journal, 2003 Jul 29 --- transformer explosion ... sent flaming oil through the streets ... fireball .. smoke plume visible for miles ... "bang" ... "sounded like a truck hit the building"
The New York Times, 2003 Apr 26 --- ... transformer explosion in the basement ... three large windows were blown out ...
TheINDYChannel.com, 2004 Dec 31 --- Underground transformer caught fire ... "muffled explosion" ...
CNN.com, 2000 Sep 14 --- ... some popping sounds: a series of explosions, sparks flying...
TheGonzalesWeeklyOnline, 2005 Jul 29 --- ... transformer ... loud explosion ...
LaurelFireDepartment --- ... explosion of transformer ...
Excellent! I need your E-mail, Do you have one like a yahoo account which isn't your main account? I don't want people to spam you.
San Francisco Chronicle, 2005 Aug 20 --- Explosion rocks downtown San Francisco ... an underground electric transformer ...
The New York Times, 1985 Jul 20 --- ... fire in an electrical switching vault in the Seagram Building ...
Jackson Sun, 2006 Feb 22 --- Underground transformer blew up ...
Reno Gazette-Journal, 2003 Jul 29 --- transformer explosion ... sent flaming oil through the streets ... fireball .. smoke plume visible for miles ... "bang" ... "sounded like a truck hit the building"
The New York Times, 2003 Apr 26 --- ... transformer explosion in the basement ... three large windows were blown out ...
TheINDYChannel.com, 2004 Dec 31 --- Underground transformer caught fire ... "muffled explosion" ...
CNN.com, 2000 Sep 14 --- ... some popping sounds: a series of explosions, sparks flying...
TheGonzalesWeeklyOnline, 2005 Jul 29 --- ... transformer ... loud explosion ...
LaurelFireDepartment --- ... explosion of transformer ...
Excellent! I need your E-mail, Do you have one like a yahoo account which isn't your main account? I don't want people to spam you.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 2 2006, 03:27 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 08:57 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 2 2006, 11:17 AM)
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 2 2006, 05:13 AM)
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
Controlled demolition does not require the columns to bend or buckle. Gravity driven collapse does. Your are good at pointing out the problems with the gravity driven collapse theory.
Where do you find evidence the NIST said the failures were all in the column strength? I saw it say it was in the bolt connections and have posted the photos from the report showing so. Please support this claim with evidence.
CD or not, the evidence shows bolt/connection failures for the majority of seperating steel members.
First, show were NIST explains the failure mode of the core columns. All I read in the report was redistributing loads and weakened columns, then global collapse ensued:
6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1
The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 144-5/194-5)
6.14.3 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 2
The south exterior wall displaced downward following the aircraft impact, but did not displace further until the east wall became unstable 43 min later. The inward bowing of the east wall, due to the inward pull of the sagging floors, caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels and resulted in the east wall columns becoming unstable. The instability progressed horizontally across the entire east face. The east wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed them to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels.
The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the east and south as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls, and increased the gravity load on the weakened east core columns. As with WTC 1, once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 145-6/195-6)
That only accounts for what happened on the impact/fire floors. Correct me if I'm wrong but we were talking about AFTER globle collapse begain. Under the impact floors the NIST said most of the bolts/connections failed. They even had photos illustrating this...
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Apr 2 2006, 04:01 PM)
Transformer failures --- Today I went web trawling about transformers and failure modes. First of all, power transformers come in many sizes and both large and small are found inside buildings. Because of transformer failures, modern design practices and codes strongly encourage placing these outside, as recent office building construction nearby demonstrates. So, in no particular order:
San Francisco Chronicle, 2005 Aug 20 --- Explosion rocks downtown San Francisco ... an underground electric transformer ...
The New York Times, 1985 Jul 20 --- ... fire in an electrical switching vault in the Seagram Building ...
Jackson Sun, 2006 Feb 22 --- Underground transformer blew up ...
Reno Gazette-Journal, 2003 Jul 29 --- transformer explosion ... sent flaming oil through the streets ... fireball .. smoke plume visible for miles ... "bang" ... "sounded like a truck hit the building"
The New York Times, 2003 Apr 26 --- ... transformer explosion in the basement ... three large windows were blown out ...
TheINDYChannel.com, 2004 Dec 31 --- Underground transformer caught fire ... "muffled explosion" ...
CNN.com, 2000 Sep 14 --- ... some popping sounds: a series of explosions, sparks flying...
TheGonzalesWeeklyOnline, 2005 Jul 29 --- ... transformer ... loud explosion ...
LaurelFireDepartment --- ... explosion of transformer ...
What you are describing is in cities they put them underground because there is no safe place outside. Search my post if you can’t find it on the internet. Indoor transformers are dry. If they do have oil, it is non- flammable and very toxic.That is why they normally use dry transformers. Do some research and you will find it is not the oil that explodes but the gas above.
San Francisco Chronicle, 2005 Aug 20 --- Explosion rocks downtown San Francisco ... an underground electric transformer ...
The New York Times, 1985 Jul 20 --- ... fire in an electrical switching vault in the Seagram Building ...
Jackson Sun, 2006 Feb 22 --- Underground transformer blew up ...
Reno Gazette-Journal, 2003 Jul 29 --- transformer explosion ... sent flaming oil through the streets ... fireball .. smoke plume visible for miles ... "bang" ... "sounded like a truck hit the building"
The New York Times, 2003 Apr 26 --- ... transformer explosion in the basement ... three large windows were blown out ...
TheINDYChannel.com, 2004 Dec 31 --- Underground transformer caught fire ... "muffled explosion" ...
CNN.com, 2000 Sep 14 --- ... some popping sounds: a series of explosions, sparks flying...
TheGonzalesWeeklyOnline, 2005 Jul 29 --- ... transformer ... loud explosion ...
LaurelFireDepartment --- ... explosion of transformer ...
What you are describing is in cities they put them underground because there is no safe place outside. Search my post if you can’t find it on the internet. Indoor transformers are dry. If they do have oil, it is non- flammable and very toxic.That is why they normally use dry transformers. Do some research and you will find it is not the oil that explodes but the gas above.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 04:54 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 2 2006, 03:27 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 2 2006, 08:57 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 2 2006, 11:17 AM)
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 2 2006, 05:13 AM)
You think this is crazy? Then explain why so many of the failed columns were scarcely bent.
NF
Controlled demolition does not require the columns to bend or buckle. Gravity driven collapse does. Your are good at pointing out the problems with the gravity driven collapse theory.
Where do you find evidence the NIST said the failures were all in the column strength? I saw it say it was in the bolt connections and have posted the photos from the report showing so. Please support this claim with evidence.
CD or not, the evidence shows bolt/connection failures for the majority of seperating steel members.
First, show were NIST explains the failure mode of the core columns. All I read in the report was redistributing loads and weakened columns, then global collapse ensued:
6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1
The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 144-5/194-5)
6.14.3 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 2
The south exterior wall displaced downward following the aircraft impact, but did not displace further until the east wall became unstable 43 min later. The inward bowing of the east wall, due to the inward pull of the sagging floors, caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels and resulted in the east wall columns becoming unstable. The instability progressed horizontally across the entire east face. The east wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed them to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels.
The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the east and south as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls, and increased the gravity load on the weakened east core columns. As with WTC 1, once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 145-6/195-6)
That only accounts for what happened on the impact/fire floors. Correct me if I'm wrong but we were talking about AFTER globle collapse begain. Under the impact floors the NIST said most of the bolts/connections failed. They even had photos illustrating this...
Do you have a reference?
From what I read NIST did not want to touch the collapse except for what I quoted above.
According to the WTC7 firefighter testimonies provided by CS, a transit was used to show that the building was tilting over. IIRC CS tied this to the impact damage from WTC1.
Taking stills from this video:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv (C'mon guys, what are the flashes?)
and enlarging them, it can be seen that the impact does not change the position of the top corner of WTC7. This isn't to say that there was no tilt at all, but if it doesn't show up at this resolution, it must only be a fraction of a percent.
This is the still from before the debris impacts WTC7:
and this is after:
Blowing them up, we see no shift relative to the background:
Taking stills from this video:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv (C'mon guys, what are the flashes?)
and enlarging them, it can be seen that the impact does not change the position of the top corner of WTC7. This isn't to say that there was no tilt at all, but if it doesn't show up at this resolution, it must only be a fraction of a percent.
This is the still from before the debris impacts WTC7:
and this is after:
Blowing them up, we see no shift relative to the background:
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 2 2006, 09:26 PM)
According to the WTC7 firefighter testimonies provided by CS, a transit was used to show that the building was tilting over. IIRC CS tied this to the impact damage from WTC1.
Taking stills from this video:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv (C'mon guys, what are the flashes?)
and enlarging them, it can be seen that the impact does not change the position of the top corner of WTC7. This isn't to say that there was no tilt at all, but if it doesn't show up at this resolution, it must only be a fraction of a percent.
This is the still from before the debris impacts WTC7:
and this is after:
Blowing them up, we see no shift relative to the background:
I can't believe you expect to see a tilt from this video taken about a half mile away and at an angle.
Are you prepared to call the fireman liars? Because it was tilted enough for them to know it was going to collapse after putting the transit on it. Are you saying this video taken a half mile away and at an angle to the building shows they were wrong? That this is somehow better than a transit on a building? Is this your argument? Help me understand...
In FACT, just when the video starts you can see what looks like debris hitting the top of the building. Most likely the debris which caused the roof damage. You can also see a large chunk lean over from the towers. It could be the exact piece which hits the 20th floor but the bulding covers this event.
I can see you're really struggling with the evidence. the video doesn't show flashes and doesn't prove the WTC7 wasn't tilted.
The longer this thread lasts the more christopherish it becomes...
One more thing, edit your post to remove the photos. There are people here that would use your personal photos against you. Faux did something similar to another member. It's a good idea to use another site to post from.
Taking stills from this video:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv (C'mon guys, what are the flashes?)
and enlarging them, it can be seen that the impact does not change the position of the top corner of WTC7. This isn't to say that there was no tilt at all, but if it doesn't show up at this resolution, it must only be a fraction of a percent.
This is the still from before the debris impacts WTC7:
and this is after:
Blowing them up, we see no shift relative to the background:
I can't believe you expect to see a tilt from this video taken about a half mile away and at an angle.
Are you prepared to call the fireman liars? Because it was tilted enough for them to know it was going to collapse after putting the transit on it. Are you saying this video taken a half mile away and at an angle to the building shows they were wrong? That this is somehow better than a transit on a building? Is this your argument? Help me understand...
In FACT, just when the video starts you can see what looks like debris hitting the top of the building. Most likely the debris which caused the roof damage. You can also see a large chunk lean over from the towers. It could be the exact piece which hits the 20th floor but the bulding covers this event.
I can see you're really struggling with the evidence. the video doesn't show flashes and doesn't prove the WTC7 wasn't tilted.
The longer this thread lasts the more christopherish it becomes...
One more thing, edit your post to remove the photos. There are people here that would use your personal photos against you. Faux did something similar to another member. It's a good idea to use another site to post from.
CS accused me of ignoring his video of the smoke coming from the south face of WTC7. At the time I was still examining it. Here are some stills from it and what I can gather about the damage/fires. The contrast has been enhanced to make details easier to see:
The highlighted area looks to be an intact part of the facade:
There is just one small fire visible in the entire sequence:
The smoke below the yellow line doesn't seem to be coming from WTC7:
The cameraman moves to a slightly different location:
The solid red line shows what appears to be a notch in the roofline. I cannot tell if this is debris damage - the facade appears to be intact right below it:
By scanning forward and backward with quicktime, your eyes can get a sense of what's behind the smoke as less opaque areas move across the facade. In the image above, the dotted yellow section appears to be intact facade, and the red section next to it seems to show a darker gash.
The less opaque area moves further to the right to reveal more intact facade:
Another less opaque area shows the intact facade on the other side of the gash:
This is difficult to gauge but there seems to be another area of intact facade here:
Again, the smoke below the yellow line can probably be disgarded.
Overall, the pall of smoke does indicate that there are fires on "several floors". However, as we don't get any hint of flame through the less opaque areas of smoke which do show parts of the facade and some items that glint white, it doesn't seem like they would be very intense.
I also see no evidence of a deep or wide gash, though the main part could be hidden, or much lower down the facade.
The highlighted area looks to be an intact part of the facade:
There is just one small fire visible in the entire sequence:
The smoke below the yellow line doesn't seem to be coming from WTC7:
The cameraman moves to a slightly different location:
The solid red line shows what appears to be a notch in the roofline. I cannot tell if this is debris damage - the facade appears to be intact right below it:
By scanning forward and backward with quicktime, your eyes can get a sense of what's behind the smoke as less opaque areas move across the facade. In the image above, the dotted yellow section appears to be intact facade, and the red section next to it seems to show a darker gash.
The less opaque area moves further to the right to reveal more intact facade:
Another less opaque area shows the intact facade on the other side of the gash:
This is difficult to gauge but there seems to be another area of intact facade here:
Again, the smoke below the yellow line can probably be disgarded.
Overall, the pall of smoke does indicate that there are fires on "several floors". However, as we don't get any hint of flame through the less opaque areas of smoke which do show parts of the facade and some items that glint white, it doesn't seem like they would be very intense.
I also see no evidence of a deep or wide gash, though the main part could be hidden, or much lower down the facade.
CS, I repeat:
So I am admitting that there WAS a tilt and it was measured by the firefighters. But if the tilt was due only to the impact damage, it must have been only a fraction of a percent not to have shown any effect on this video. If you believe a larger tilt would not have shown up at this resolution, you can do the measurements yourself of what a measurable tilt at this pixel size would represent.
The other possibility is that the tilt increased as fire damage increased - what time was the measurement done?
So I am admitting that there WAS a tilt and it was measured by the firefighters. But if the tilt was due only to the impact damage, it must have been only a fraction of a percent not to have shown any effect on this video. If you believe a larger tilt would not have shown up at this resolution, you can do the measurements yourself of what a measurable tilt at this pixel size would represent.
The other possibility is that the tilt increased as fire damage increased - what time was the measurement done?
the video doesn't show flashes and doesn't prove the WTC7 wasn't tilted.
I NEVER said it wasn't tilted. You really do go all out, but misrepresenting your opponent is not helpful.
Do you need me to capture more stills with arrows pointing you to the flashes?
QUOTE
This isn't to say that there was no tilt at all, but if it doesn't show up at this resolution, it must only be a fraction of a percent.
So I am admitting that there WAS a tilt and it was measured by the firefighters. But if the tilt was due only to the impact damage, it must have been only a fraction of a percent not to have shown any effect on this video. If you believe a larger tilt would not have shown up at this resolution, you can do the measurements yourself of what a measurable tilt at this pixel size would represent.
The other possibility is that the tilt increased as fire damage increased - what time was the measurement done?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This isn't to say that there was no tilt at all, but if it doesn't show up at this resolution, it must only be a fraction of a percent. |
So I am admitting that there WAS a tilt and it was measured by the firefighters. But if the tilt was due only to the impact damage, it must have been only a fraction of a percent not to have shown any effect on this video. If you believe a larger tilt would not have shown up at this resolution, you can do the measurements yourself of what a measurable tilt at this pixel size would represent.
The other possibility is that the tilt increased as fire damage increased - what time was the measurement done?
the video doesn't show flashes and doesn't prove the WTC7 wasn't tilted.
I NEVER said it wasn't tilted. You really do go all out, but misrepresenting your opponent is not helpful.
Do you need me to capture more stills with arrows pointing you to the flashes?
By the way, I do not understand the problem of hosting images on my own domain?
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 2 2006, 11:03 PM)
By the way, I do not understand the problem of hosting images on my own domain?
People like Faux will go back to the root and see the photos of your wedding you have. I can't guarantee we won't have a "Faux" on our side one day. They take personal photos and try to embarrass people with them. He already did it to another poster. A very sick thing to do if you ask me.
But hay, if you don't care I don't.
People like Faux will go back to the root and see the photos of your wedding you have. I can't guarantee we won't have a "Faux" on our side one day. They take personal photos and try to embarrass people with them. He already did it to another poster. A very sick thing to do if you ask me.
But hay, if you don't care I don't.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 3 2006, 12:41 AM)
For now, let me repeat myself..
I'm still waiting for the evidence used to determine the width and depth of the south face hole on WTC7.
What patience. Sorry to see that you've met with unaccountable speculation.
Speaking of speculation. I never did get a decent, logical explanation for the non appearance of the supposed 47, steel core columns in the core area in images from reasonwhy, Cspam or fox. As good as it got, was one blurted out. "They were blown up"
The columns seen are outside the core and the concrete shear wall is behind it. If the (sic) core columns existed, they would be the strongest columns in the tower, meaning those seen comprising the spire would be inferior because they were not inside the core, not " core columns".
There are no steel columns seen inside the core area. There were none. The columns seen in the above image are interior box columns, having the same number and construction as the LIE told by the gov regarding the tower core design. If people knew there was a steel reinforced concrete core, they would never believe the impact/fire/collapse lie.
I'm still waiting for the evidence used to determine the width and depth of the south face hole on WTC7.
What patience. Sorry to see that you've met with unaccountable speculation.
Speaking of speculation. I never did get a decent, logical explanation for the non appearance of the supposed 47, steel core columns in the core area in images from reasonwhy, Cspam or fox. As good as it got, was one blurted out. "They were blown up"
The columns seen are outside the core and the concrete shear wall is behind it. If the (sic) core columns existed, they would be the strongest columns in the tower, meaning those seen comprising the spire would be inferior because they were not inside the core, not " core columns".
There are no steel columns seen inside the core area. There were none. The columns seen in the above image are interior box columns, having the same number and construction as the LIE told by the gov regarding the tower core design. If people knew there was a steel reinforced concrete core, they would never believe the impact/fire/collapse lie.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 04:24 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 2 2006, 11:03 PM)
By the way, I do not understand the problem of hosting images on my own domain?
People like Faux will go back to the root and see the photos of your wedding you have. I can't guarantee we won't have a "Faux" on our side one day. They take personal photos and try to embarrass people with them. He already did it to another poster. A very sick thing to do if you ask me.
But hay, if you don't care I don't.
people on 'our side' don't need to be worried about the public finding out who we are, nor do we even need to worry about 'them', as 'they' already know who 'we' are, and will make it look like an accident, if they decide to go that route.
newtonnjd, i would recommend not defending murderers, if you're going to use your own domain.
well, common sense, if you understood anything about 'gravity', you would know why foxx felt it prudent to positively identify people who work tirelessly to defend murderers.
common schnense, you do realise that there is a whole thread full of your vile insults and hate speech, right?
well, common sense, if you understood anything about 'gravity', you would know why foxx felt it prudent to positively identify people who work tirelessly to defend murderers.
common schnense, you do realise that there is a whole thread full of your vile insults and hate speech, right?
A very sick thing to do if you ask me.
kettle, .....meet pot. pot, ...kettle.
by the way, i didn't get to see your wedding photos, shnieby. i do feel sorry for your bride, though..... 'married to the mob', LOL!
Just claiming the bolts failed makes about as much sense to me as just claiming the towers fell, due to gravity plus jet impacts plus fire. Why did the bolts fail, and how common was their failure?
Here are some articles regarding connections and how they failed.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004Structura...pseAnalysis.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...ft%20Impact.pdf
It's hard to imagine that most of the perimeter columns could have bent in full plastic deformation when the bolts failed so easily. The same can be said for core columns. Recall the relatively straight box columns that were seen with clean breaks at the welded splices. A general survey of the debris shows that most of the columns didn't fail by full plastic deformation of the columns themselves.
Excerpt from the MIT article about bolts.
“4.5 Connections
Each prefabricated panel was bolted through spandrels to its horizontal neighbor with 2 rows of 18 bolts each. This is, again, an estimated value, but as you will see later on in this discussion, a bolted connection is so weak that the diameter of these bolts within plus and minus 5mm is really insignificant. It is easy to calculate the cross sectional shear strength of the bolts, and is approximately half of the shear strength of the parent material, and possibly less because of stress concentrations. The photographic coverage of “Ground Zero” has proven that individual, prefabricated panels were almost all separated at these bolted seems, and it can further be said that it was actually the bolts which fractured rather than the material in the spaces in-between them.
Concerning the connection between the staggered, prefabricated elements in the vertical direction, there were only four bolts adhering the interfaces of two columns. The bolt cross sectional areas in these joints comprised approximately 2.3% of the column cross-section. Clearly there is a gross incompatibility between the strength of the connections (in shear and in tension) with the strength of the columns themselves. Elementary, beam-bending theory calculations show that these bolts would have failed with only 1 mm transverse deflection of the columns (loaded as a beam). For all practical purposes they may be assumed to have negligible strength in bending, shear and tension. The strength of connection between the exterior wall and floor trusses is discussed in Section 6.”
People like Faux will go back to the root and see the photos of your wedding you have. I can't guarantee we won't have a "Faux" on our side one day. They take personal photos and try to embarrass people with them. He already did it to another poster. A very sick thing to do if you ask me.
But hay, if you don't care I don't.
people on 'our side' don't need to be worried about the public finding out who we are, nor do we even need to worry about 'them', as 'they' already know who 'we' are, and will make it look like an accident, if they decide to go that route.
newtonnjd, i would recommend not defending murderers, if you're going to use your own domain.
QUOTE
A very sick thing to do if you ask me.
well, common sense, if you understood anything about 'gravity', you would know why foxx felt it prudent to positively identify people who work tirelessly to defend murderers.
common schnense, you do realise that there is a whole thread full of your vile insults and hate speech, right?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A very sick thing to do if you ask me. |
well, common sense, if you understood anything about 'gravity', you would know why foxx felt it prudent to positively identify people who work tirelessly to defend murderers.
common schnense, you do realise that there is a whole thread full of your vile insults and hate speech, right?
A very sick thing to do if you ask me.
kettle, .....meet pot. pot, ...kettle.
by the way, i didn't get to see your wedding photos, shnieby. i do feel sorry for your bride, though..... 'married to the mob', LOL!
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 2 2006, 10:45 PM)
CS accused me of ignoring his video of the smoke coming from the south face of WTC7. At the time I was still examining it. Here are some stills from it and what I can gather about the damage/fires. The contrast has been enhanced to make details easier to see:
The highlighted area looks to be an intact part of the facade:
There is just one small fire visible in the entire sequence:
The smoke below the yellow line doesn't seem to be coming from WTC7:
The cameraman moves to a slightly different location:
The solid red line shows what appears to be a notch in the roofline. I cannot tell if this is debris damage - the facade appears to be intact right below it:
By scanning forward and backward with quicktime, your eyes can get a sense of what's behind the smoke as less opaque areas move across the facade. In the image above, the dotted yellow section appears to be intact facade, and the red section next to it seems to show a darker gash.
The less opaque area moves further to the right to reveal more intact facade:
Another less opaque area shows the intact facade on the other side of the gash:
This is difficult to gauge but there seems to be another area of intact facade here:
Again, the smoke below the yellow line can probably be disgarded.
Overall, the pall of smoke does indicate that there are fires on "several floors". However, as we don't get any hint of flame through the less opaque areas of smoke which do show parts of the facade and some items that glint white, it doesn't seem like they would be very intense.
I also see no evidence of a deep or wide gash, though the main part could be hidden, or much lower down the facade.
Dude, that's a 47 story building. You CAN'T see the 20th floor. The 20th floor is the where the major damage is. And it's also in the center of the building and also covered by the smoke. You know why? Because the smoke is so thick it covers most of the building. Why is the smoke so thick if the fire is so small?
But you notice something? The conspiracy sites which say there was only a small fire don't show that side much. They do what Alek did. I don't blame Alek mind you. He actually thought he was right because that's the photo the conspiracy sites like to use to buttress their argument, the north side. It's speaks to the whole conspiracy site culture. They only tell you one side of the argument then let you make up your mind. Yet another example of dishonesty.
Sometimes it feels like republicans defending Rush. No matter what half truth he uses to buttress his arguments republicans continue to defend the argument.
The highlighted area looks to be an intact part of the facade:
There is just one small fire visible in the entire sequence:
The smoke below the yellow line doesn't seem to be coming from WTC7:
The cameraman moves to a slightly different location:
The solid red line shows what appears to be a notch in the roofline. I cannot tell if this is debris damage - the facade appears to be intact right below it:
By scanning forward and backward with quicktime, your eyes can get a sense of what's behind the smoke as less opaque areas move across the facade. In the image above, the dotted yellow section appears to be intact facade, and the red section next to it seems to show a darker gash.
The less opaque area moves further to the right to reveal more intact facade:
Another less opaque area shows the intact facade on the other side of the gash:
This is difficult to gauge but there seems to be another area of intact facade here:
Again, the smoke below the yellow line can probably be disgarded.
Overall, the pall of smoke does indicate that there are fires on "several floors". However, as we don't get any hint of flame through the less opaque areas of smoke which do show parts of the facade and some items that glint white, it doesn't seem like they would be very intense.
I also see no evidence of a deep or wide gash, though the main part could be hidden, or much lower down the facade.
Dude, that's a 47 story building. You CAN'T see the 20th floor. The 20th floor is the where the major damage is. And it's also in the center of the building and also covered by the smoke. You know why? Because the smoke is so thick it covers most of the building. Why is the smoke so thick if the fire is so small?
But you notice something? The conspiracy sites which say there was only a small fire don't show that side much. They do what Alek did. I don't blame Alek mind you. He actually thought he was right because that's the photo the conspiracy sites like to use to buttress their argument, the north side. It's speaks to the whole conspiracy site culture. They only tell you one side of the argument then let you make up your mind. Yet another example of dishonesty.
Sometimes it feels like republicans defending Rush. No matter what half truth he uses to buttress his arguments republicans continue to defend the argument.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 2 2006, 10:59 PM)
Do you need me to capture more stills with arrows pointing you to the flashes?
Yes
Yes
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 2 2006, 02:40 PM)
Just claiming the bolts failed makes about as much sense to me as just claiming the towers fell, due to gravity plus jet impacts plus fire. Why did the bolts fail, and how common was their failure?
Here are some articles regarding connections and how they failed.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004Structura...pseAnalysis.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...ft%20Impact.pdf
It's hard to imagine that most of the perimeter columns could have bent in full plastic deformation when the bolts failed so easily. The same can be said for core columns. Recall the relatively straight box columns that were seen with clean breaks at the welded splices. A general survey of the debris shows that most of the columns didn't fail by full plastic deformation of the columns themselves.
Excerpt from the MIT article about bolts.
“4.5 Connections
Each prefabricated panel was bolted through spandrels to its horizontal neighbor with 2 rows of 18 bolts each. This is, again, an estimated value, but as you will see later on in this discussion, a bolted connection is so weak that the diameter of these bolts within plus and minus 5mm is really insignificant. It is easy to calculate the cross sectional shear strength of the bolts, and is approximately half of the shear strength of the parent material, and possibly less because of stress concentrations. The photographic coverage of “Ground Zero” has proven that individual, prefabricated panels were almost all separated at these bolted seems, and it can further be said that it was actually the bolts which fractured rather than the material in the spaces in-between them.
Concerning the connection between the staggered, prefabricated elements in the vertical direction, there were only four bolts adhering the interfaces of two columns. The bolt cross sectional areas in these joints comprised approximately 2.3% of the column cross-section. Clearly there is a gross incompatibility between the strength of the connections (in shear and in tension) with the strength of the columns themselves. Elementary, beam-bending theory calculations show that these bolts would have failed with only 1 mm transverse deflection of the columns (loaded as a beam). For all practical purposes they may be assumed to have negligible strength in bending, shear and tension. The strength of connection between the exterior wall and floor trusses is discussed in Section 6.”
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 3 2006, 03:50 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Apr 2 2006, 11:44 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 04:24 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 2 2006, 11:03 PM)
By the way, I do not understand the problem of hosting images on my own domain?
People like Faux will go back to the root and see the photos of your wedding you have. I can't guarantee we won't have a "Faux" on our side one day. They take personal photos and try to embarrass people with them. He already did it to another poster. A very sick thing to do if you ask me.
But hay, if you don't care I don't.
people on 'our side' don't need to be worried about the public finding out who we are, nor do we even need to worry about 'them', as 'they' already know who 'we' are, and will make it look like an accident, if they decide to go that route.
newtonnjd, i would recommend not defending murderers, if you're going to use your own domain.
well, common sense, if you understood anything about 'gravity', you would know why foxx felt it prudent to positively identify people who work tirelessly to defend murderers.
common schnense, you do realise that there is a whole thread full of your vile insults and hate speech, right?
People like Faux will go back to the root and see the photos of your wedding you have. I can't guarantee we won't have a "Faux" on our side one day. They take personal photos and try to embarrass people with them. He already did it to another poster. A very sick thing to do if you ask me.
But hay, if you don't care I don't.
people on 'our side' don't need to be worried about the public finding out who we are, nor do we even need to worry about 'them', as 'they' already know who 'we' are, and will make it look like an accident, if they decide to go that route.
newtonnjd, i would recommend not defending murderers, if you're going to use your own domain.
QUOTE
A very sick thing to do if you ask me.
well, common sense, if you understood anything about 'gravity', you would know why foxx felt it prudent to positively identify people who work tirelessly to defend murderers.
common schnense, you do realise that there is a whole thread full of your vile insults and hate speech, right?
QUOTE (->