QUOTE (brian+Apr 3 2006, 07:58 AM)
CSs statement that his children lives were less important than the truth and his feigned concern for the Iraqi people tells us all we need to know about this person.
His contempt for humanity is as blatant as is it for the truth.
Foxx was ahead of the game again -
Disinfo Pro - Death Of A Once-Great Blogger -
http://www.rense.com/general70/disin.htm
Your statement that you care about politics more than the lives of Iraqi's what's telling. Because that's all I ever see you bring to the table. I would GLADELY give up my life and the life of my family to save hundreds of thousands of people. What kind of piece of selfish crap are you people anyway??? Have you no morals? Is your selfish lives that important??? Do you REALLY need Bush's tax cut so bad that you would hose the only real chance for an investigation into his murders? Talk about a "Conspiracy"
Some liberal you are...
I hope you choke on your tax cut.
His contempt for humanity is as blatant as is it for the truth.
Foxx was ahead of the game again -
Disinfo Pro - Death Of A Once-Great Blogger -
http://www.rense.com/general70/disin.htm
Your statement that you care about politics more than the lives of Iraqi's what's telling. Because that's all I ever see you bring to the table. I would GLADELY give up my life and the life of my family to save hundreds of thousands of people. What kind of piece of selfish crap are you people anyway??? Have you no morals? Is your selfish lives that important??? Do you REALLY need Bush's tax cut so bad that you would hose the only real chance for an investigation into his murders? Talk about a "Conspiracy"
Some liberal you are...
I hope you choke on your tax cut.
QUOTE (scneibster's conscience+Apr 3 2006, 01:44 AM)
A vile traitorous sellout keeps a close watch on the clown car. The sellout has not been sleeping well lately.
The occupants of the clown car know all about the traitor and his sock puppetry tactics. The traitor should go away and die in a fire.
These are the people you side with newtonnjd. People who GLEEFULLY use the photos of others and their family to character assassinate them. Will they speak to Schneibster's points he brought up? No, they are incapable. The only tactic they have is to smear. They're no different than the neo-con scum they pretend to hate.
No doubt this is faux/Mel ironically talks about sock puppets but uses them extensively.
David B. Benson, you need to validate your e-mail by clicking on the link on the e-mail you recieved from physorg when you signed up.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=78854
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=78854
QUOTE (shagster+Apr 3 2006, 12:21 AM)
Here's a nice page of pics and videos of electrical shorts, transformer explosions, and the like. Fuses and circuit breakers can't always prevent a failure.
I saw a truck hit a pole on my street once. It caused the wires to wave about and arc over. It looked like bright blue lightning for about 30 secs then the breaker disconnected and all the lights went out. After about 5 minutes when the breaker had cooled, the power came back on.
About four months later in the summer, a connection or wire near the same breaker failed and knocked the power out. I suspect that the wire or connector partially melted before the breaker could trip when the truck hit the pole. Later in the summer when electricity demand was high, the connection failed completely. It was one of the hottest days of the summer when it failed.
Right click on the photos for the video. (save link target as)
http://205.243.100.155/frames/longarc.htm
Do you have any proof they don’t use insulated wires inside a building like all your examples of non-insulated outdoor wire that caused arcs? Solar activity can cause an overload of the electrical grid ,are you going to argue that could be a reason for the flashes (Common Sense please don’t quote me if you add solar activity to your web site).
I saw a truck hit a pole on my street once. It caused the wires to wave about and arc over. It looked like bright blue lightning for about 30 secs then the breaker disconnected and all the lights went out. After about 5 minutes when the breaker had cooled, the power came back on.
About four months later in the summer, a connection or wire near the same breaker failed and knocked the power out. I suspect that the wire or connector partially melted before the breaker could trip when the truck hit the pole. Later in the summer when electricity demand was high, the connection failed completely. It was one of the hottest days of the summer when it failed.
Right click on the photos for the video. (save link target as)
http://205.243.100.155/frames/longarc.htm
Do you have any proof they don’t use insulated wires inside a building like all your examples of non-insulated outdoor wire that caused arcs? Solar activity can cause an overload of the electrical grid ,are you going to argue that could be a reason for the flashes (Common Sense please don’t quote me if you add solar activity to your web site).
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 3 2006, 09:11 AM)
(Common Sense please don’t quote me if you add solar activity to your web site).
What are you talking about. Is this an attempt at more insults? Can you at least make your insults coherent?
Solar flares couldn't occur in the towers because there was no sun in the towers. Electrical ARCS CAN occur in the towers because there was PLENTY of power to cause one.
Why you continue to make fun of the fact that I try to be fair in my site only proves I'm trying to be fair on my site. I wonder how many Conspiracy sites are being as fair? Is fairness something to be made fun of? 
What are you talking about. Is this an attempt at more insults? Can you at least make your insults coherent?
Solar flares couldn't occur in the towers because there was no sun in the towers. Electrical ARCS CAN occur in the towers because there was PLENTY of power to cause one.
Why you continue to make fun of the fact that I try to be fair in my site only proves I'm trying to be fair on my site. I wonder how many Conspiracy sites are being as fair?
Is fairness something to be made fun of?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 07:43 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 3 2006, 09:11 AM)
(Common Sense please don’t quote me if you add solar activity to your web site).
What are you talking about. Is this an attempt at more insults? Can you at least make your insults coherent?
Solar flares couldn't occur in the towers because there was no sun in the towers. Electrical ARCS CAN occur in the towers because there was PLENTY of power to cause one.
Why you continue to make fun of the fact that I try to be fair in my site only proves I'm trying to be fair on my site. I wonder how many Conspiracy sites are being as fair? Is fairness something to be made fun of?
I read were it also caused outdoor transformers to explode in Sweden :
Power Failure in Canada During 1989
Hydro-Quebec confirms that the March 13 blackout was caused by the strongest magnetic storm ever recorded since the 735-kV power system was commissioned. At 2:45 a.m., the storm, which resulted from a solar flare, tripped five lines from James Bay and caused a generation loss of 9,450 MW. With a load of some 21,350 MW at that moment, the system was unable to withstand this sudden loss and collapsed within seconds, thereby causing further loss of generation from Churchill Falls and Mania-Outardes.
http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/1/3/12
Wrong again, You just don't like the people who have.
Yeah, and from the references you give to back up the refutation of this specific claim (absolutely none), I really believe you, too.
Wrong again, You just don't like the people who have.
Yeah, and from the references you give to back up the refutation of this specific claim (absolutely none), I really believe you, too.
Wrong again, no building fell faster than free fall that day. You haven't proven jack in this respect.
And I didn't SAY that any building fell faster than free fall. You're really losing it, aren't you?
Wrong again, no building fell faster than free fall that day. You haven't proven jack in this respect.
And I didn't SAY that any building fell faster than free fall. You're really losing it, aren't you?
Then why can't you find one? You seem to make statements all the time which never have evidence to support them.
This is a fair question, but I anticipated it and answered! See below. If you mean, why haven't I personally approached civil engineers, the answer is that I went almost directly from being essentially immobile, to a job where I commute 20+ hours per week. However, a day off is coming.
Then why can't you find one? You seem to make statements all the time which never have evidence to support them.
This is a fair question, but I anticipated it and answered! See below. If you mean, why haven't I personally approached civil engineers, the answer is that I went almost directly from being essentially immobile, to a job where I commute 20+ hours per week. However, a day off is coming.
An absurd argument. I guess because no one has done a survey with history professors on how many people in the holocaust we can't say for sure if it happened... Heh! The fact is no history professor has peer reviewed a paper on there not being a holocaust. Once again because the horse can't push the cart you call it a draw.
Straw man. I was referring to a survey of civil engineer's intuition, not a survey of civil engineer's acceptance of a well known fact, with tons of evidence behind that fact.
Therefore, an appropriate analogy with your historian/holocaust example would be between how many Ph.D. civil engineers accepted the "reality" of Newton's laws of motion.
Nobody is going to do such a survey, and the reason is perfectly obvious. Nobody is going to do a survey of how many people keep putting gas in their cars, so that they can keep going, either.
I suggest you look at the videos of the second impact again.
I thought you said you were an engineer. There are numerous witness accounts both towers swaying back and forth, I don't think anyone in the CD camp disputes this the towers were over 1360 feet high and over 200 feet wide. A few feet of swaying wouldn1y be noticable.
You are assuming that a large number of politicians are both non-corrupt AND in possession of something incriminating. I doubt the non-corrupt ones are in the right circles to have any dirt.
Apples and oranges. I am an unknown, someone who could not be a whistleblower or have any incriminating evidence. I'm one of thousands. The risks are miniscule. The risks would be higher if I had potentially damaging information I could release.
Again you are assuming there are scores of politicians who would be willing, and be in a position, to speak out (even when it might lead to a downfall of the current political system). This is pure subjecture on your part. Let's stick to physics.
If there is any reasonable doubt, which there is, it should be examined (Your other examples are not reasonable). Especially when the verdict has led to BILLIONS spent on foreign wars which could have been avoided if a more open investigation was done. They attacked Afghanistan while Bin Laden was still denying it, and yet now the OCTs look back and spout "But Bin Laden admitted it!". Just the fact that they were so quick to conclude with certainty who was guilty should raise an eyebrow. How thorough could a single day of investigation be? Oh yeah, I forgot, the highjackers conveniently left an conspicuous trail right at the end. Korans and flight manuals left in cars.. no, never question the FBI, they are 100% trustworthy.. and we should always take their evidence at face value.
If there is any reasonable doubt, which there is, it should be examined (Your other examples are not reasonable). Especially when the verdict has led to BILLIONS spent on foreign wars which could have been avoided if a more open investigation was done. They attacked Afghanistan while Bin Laden was still denying it, and yet now the OCTs look back and spout "But Bin Laden admitted it!". Just the fact that they were so quick to conclude with certainty who was guilty should raise an eyebrow. How thorough could a single day of investigation be? Oh yeah, I forgot, the highjackers conveniently left an conspicuous trail right at the end. Korans and flight manuals left in cars.. no, never question the FBI, they are 100% trustworthy.. and we should always take their evidence at face value.
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.
What intel, pre-9/11 or Iraq?
Do you think Bin Laden is a clever guy? Do you think he was well versed in the US political system and the neocons Straussian philosophy? If so, does that mean he knew he was giving the neocons enormous political capital and the perfect opportunity to put their philosophy into action? Forgive me if I have trouble figuring out the guys motives in aiding the emergence of a Straussian enemy that would benefit the neocons (and his timing was rather interesting, just after the neocons came to power). His actions served the neocons. Either this was done knowingly, or he's a very inept terrorist, not a mastermind. (Or perhaps he thinks he's a Bond villain - commits the perfect crime then does something idiotic like filming himself owning up)
Let's not get bogged down in what is or isn't insulting. My style is what it is. There are enough insults flung around in this thread that it should be like water off a ducks back by this stage.
Let's not get bogged down in what is or isn't insulting. My style is what it is. There are enough insults flung around in this thread that it should be like water off a ducks back by this stage.
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.
Sorry, but the position of the kink proves nothing. The kink may well match the location that was weakened by the collapse of the penthouse. But if the penthouse collapse was a product of CD, as I believe likely, then it could be used by either side.
Okay then, write to Dr Sunder and tell him to stop doubting the preliminary report.
Okay then, write to Dr Sunder and tell him to stop doubting the preliminary report.
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.
When you make poorly thought through claims (such as the kink being inconsistent with CD), then I will point them out.
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 first quote says nothing about whether CD is the OBVIOUS conclusion, only that its a possibility that fits better than you claim it does.
The second quote was succeeded by a question that began "Seriously,", which should make it obvious that I wasn't being completely serious with that comment.
I was referring to your statement that
to which I responded
to which I responded
Seriously, what are these differences you are only now starting to spot?
Your statement implies that you are seeing more differences as time goes by. So I asked what differences you are ONLY NOW starting to see. So, if you were following the conversation, you would know I was only talking about the differences you'd noticed RECENTLY, not your base arguements you've always used. So I asked if the kink was all you had in terms of WHAT YOU'VE ONLY NOTICED RECENTLY. Clear now?
Okay, I concede. The lack of french structural engineers who've been funded to conducted their own independent study of the WTC collapses PROVES that CD is isn't even a remote possibility. Game over.
Okay, I concede. The lack of french structural engineers who've been funded to conducted their own independent study of the WTC collapses PROVES that CD is isn't even a remote possibility. Game over.
Dr miller from Jones own university said his paper ignore the evidence.
So what, a 5 year old could say exactly the same thing. Doesn't mean they could say exactly what this evidence is that's been ignored, or that they've even read it to begin with.
Okay, then Miller should just shut up until the paper is properly peer-reviewed. The horse should not claim that the cart is easy to pull until the cart is in position, right?
Okay, then Miller should just shut up until the paper is properly peer-reviewed. The horse should not claim that the cart is easy to pull until the cart is in position, right?
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.
So we debunk an entire report on one innaccuracy (though I have not read that part so I won't dismiss it without knowing his reasons). If so that's not good news for FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Omission..
So the "20 storey hole" is from the 20th floor down to the ground? Thanks, I hadn't known that (as you are not very forthcoming on the evidence used to determine the hole dimensions and location, which I keep asking for). The fact that the hole is low down only helps CD, as the chances of the debris penetrating to the core columns becomes lower than I'd thought.
So the "20 storey hole" is from the 20th floor down to the ground? Thanks, I hadn't known that (as you are not very forthcoming on the evidence used to determine the hole dimensions and location, which I keep asking for). The fact that the hole is low down only helps CD, as the chances of the debris penetrating to the core columns becomes lower than I'd thought.
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?
The bottom half of the pall of smoke (which is the lighter smoke too), does not seem to originate from WTC7. But I never said the fire was "so small", I said that there's no evidence of INTENSE fires in this video. You don't need intense fires to produce a fair amount of smoke.
You are right that they don't tend to show the pall of smoke. But this smoke is not evidence in itself for fires anywhere near intense enough to significantly affect the building. The images of the north side with hardly any fire visible ARE telling though. Apparantly the fire burnt for several hours. If it was so intense on the south side, why had it not spread to other parts of the building? Was the north side mostly devoid of anything that would burn?
Yes!!!! There is a notch in the roofline. As a matter of fact tyhere is one on each side of the south face. This is a detail you would know had you bothered to read the NIST report on WTC 7
You would also know that the damage spoken of occurs to the center of the building starting at about the 20th floor, though some witnesses put it higher.
The structural damage to the SW corner started at the 18th floor. That damage is not visible in your pictures either. That small fire in the corner is just above the damage to the corner. This means that your pictures mean nothing other than to point out areas where there is no damage where no one claims there to be damage.
The smoke in the pictures comes from basically two sources, WTC 7 itself and WTC 6, that is directly accross the street from WTC 7 and is in the foreground of these pictures. This illustrates one of the difficulties of getting photos of the south side of WTC 7. Directly south is WTC 6 - on fire and directly south of that the remains of WTC 1 - on fire.
But I gave you some. That you don't believe them is your business. I don't believe a word you say either. But here are the ones I gave you just incase...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=9&c=y
I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
DEGREES
BES Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 1969
MS Stanford University Stanford, California 1970
Engineer Stanford University Stanford, California 1972
Ph.D. Stanford University Stanford, California 1975
Post PhD Diploma International Institute for Hydrologists Delft, The Netherlands 1983
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
1973-74 Auburn University Auburn, Alabama Instructor of Civil Engineering
1974-78 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
1978-87 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1979 Northeastern University Boston, Mass. Visiting Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1987-present Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Professor of Civil Engineering
SERVICE
Department Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2000 - present
Graduate Coordinator, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1985 - 2000
Member, Exec. Committee, Utah Section, American Water Res. Assoc., 1988 - present
Member, Orem City Metropolitan Water Board, 1980 - 1990
Member, Provo City Metropolitan Water Board, 2005 - Present
ORGANIZATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Water Resources Association; Past President twice, Utah Section
American Society for Engineering Education
Tau Beta Pi, Past President, Utah Beta Section
Phi Kappa Phi and Sigma Xi
HONORS AND AWARDS
Karl G. Maeser Distinguished Teaching Award from Brigham Young University, 1988
BYU Blue Key Professor of the Year/Recognition of Excellence Award, 1993
Outstanding College Teacher Award, College of Engineering, 1988
Teacher of the Year Award, Civil Engineering Department, 1986, 1988-89, 1991-94, 1997-98, 2002, and 2004
Utah Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Engineers Joint Council, 1993
Utah Civil Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of ASCE, 1992
Utah Water Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of AWRA, 2001
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php...miller/vita.php
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2
"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display...ss.cfm?uid=1874
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D.
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html
Metamars, your hand waving is entering humming bird speed. Heh!
But I gave you some. That you don't believe them is your business. I don't believe a word you say either. But here are the ones I gave you just incase...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=9&c=y
I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
DEGREES
BES Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 1969
MS Stanford University Stanford, California 1970
Engineer Stanford University Stanford, California 1972
Ph.D. Stanford University Stanford, California 1975
Post PhD Diploma International Institute for Hydrologists Delft, The Netherlands 1983
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
1973-74 Auburn University Auburn, Alabama Instructor of Civil Engineering
1974-78 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
1978-87 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1979 Northeastern University Boston, Mass. Visiting Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1987-present Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Professor of Civil Engineering
SERVICE
Department Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2000 - present
Graduate Coordinator, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1985 - 2000
Member, Exec. Committee, Utah Section, American Water Res. Assoc., 1988 - present
Member, Orem City Metropolitan Water Board, 1980 - 1990
Member, Provo City Metropolitan Water Board, 2005 - Present
ORGANIZATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Water Resources Association; Past President twice, Utah Section
American Society for Engineering Education
Tau Beta Pi, Past President, Utah Beta Section
Phi Kappa Phi and Sigma Xi
HONORS AND AWARDS
Karl G. Maeser Distinguished Teaching Award from Brigham Young University, 1988
BYU Blue Key Professor of the Year/Recognition of Excellence Award, 1993
Outstanding College Teacher Award, College of Engineering, 1988
Teacher of the Year Award, Civil Engineering Department, 1986, 1988-89, 1991-94, 1997-98, 2002, and 2004
Utah Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Engineers Joint Council, 1993
Utah Civil Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of ASCE, 1992
Utah Water Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of AWRA, 2001
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php...miller/vita.php
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2
"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display...ss.cfm?uid=1874
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D.
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html
Metamars, your hand waving is entering humming bird speed. Heh!
And I didn't SAY that any building fell faster than free fall. You're really losing it, aren't you?
You haven't proved that. No matter how many times you wave your hands and stomp your feet you didn't. You haven't brought ANY conclusive evidence. The evidence you think you're bringing is laughable. "Look at this grainy internet video taken from a quarter mile away! It prove! it came down in less than free fall sspeed!" HEHEHE. Wave away...
Yeah, let me know how that works out... The point is you people have had 4 years to do so and haven't. The idea that this couldn't be done by someone else is also absurd. Make excuses much, do you?
Yeah, let me know how that works out... The point is you people have had 4 years to do so and haven't. The idea that this couldn't be done by someone else is also absurd. Make excuses much, do you?
Therefore, an appropriate analogy with your historian/holocaust example would be between how many Ph.D. civil engineers accepted the "reality" of Newton's laws of motion.
Simply put as many as didn't challenge it when he did it. Take about staw men. GEEZ This from someone obviously dancing on the yellow brick road. Click your heals twice will ya! "There's no place like reality, there's no place like reality..."
I'd rather do my own research seeing as the head of NIST doesn't feel that report is in any way definitive.
What are you talking about. Is this an attempt at more insults? Can you at least make your insults coherent?
Solar flares couldn't occur in the towers because there was no sun in the towers. Electrical ARCS CAN occur in the towers because there was PLENTY of power to cause one.
Why you continue to make fun of the fact that I try to be fair in my site only proves I'm trying to be fair on my site. I wonder how many Conspiracy sites are being as fair?
Is fairness something to be made fun of? I read were it also caused outdoor transformers to explode in Sweden :
Power Failure in Canada During 1989
Hydro-Quebec confirms that the March 13 blackout was caused by the strongest magnetic storm ever recorded since the 735-kV power system was commissioned. At 2:45 a.m., the storm, which resulted from a solar flare, tripped five lines from James Bay and caused a generation loss of 9,450 MW. With a load of some 21,350 MW at that moment, the system was unable to withstand this sudden loss and collapsed within seconds, thereby causing further loss of generation from Churchill Falls and Mania-Outardes.
http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/1/3/12
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 12:52 PM)
QUOTE
1) the notion of a steel framed building collapsing, even one that had experienced fires, maybe 6 or 7 seconds more than free fall time. A priori and with no calculations, I don't think that anybody can say, with any real authority, this is possible or impossible. Certainly, nobody did make such thoughts explicit pre-911.
Wrong again, You just don't like the people who have.
Yeah, and from the references you give to back up the refutation of this specific claim (absolutely none), I really believe you, too.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) the notion of a steel framed building collapsing, even one that had experienced fires, maybe 6 or 7 seconds more than free fall time. A priori and with no calculations, I don't think that anybody can say, with any real authority, this is possible or impossible. Certainly, nobody did make such thoughts explicit pre-911. |
Wrong again, You just don't like the people who have.
Yeah, and from the references you give to back up the refutation of this specific claim (absolutely none), I really believe you, too.
QUOTE
2) a DIFFERENT steel framed building falling in only about .5 seconds more than free fall time, even one that had experienced fires.
Wrong again, no building fell faster than free fall that day. You haven't proven jack in this respect.
And I didn't SAY that any building fell faster than free fall. You're really losing it, aren't you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2) a DIFFERENT steel framed building falling in only about .5 seconds more than free fall time, even one that had experienced fires. |
Wrong again, no building fell faster than free fall that day. You haven't proven jack in this respect.
And I didn't SAY that any building fell faster than free fall. You're really losing it, aren't you?
QUOTE
Perhaps in your mind, the difference between .5 seconds and maybe 7 or 8 seconds make no difference. However, I sincerely doubt that civil and structural engineers would agree with that notion.
Then why can't you find one? You seem to make statements all the time which never have evidence to support them.
This is a fair question, but I anticipated it and answered! See below. If you mean, why haven't I personally approached civil engineers, the answer is that I went almost directly from being essentially immobile, to a job where I commute 20+ hours per week. However, a day off is coming.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps in your mind, the difference between .5 seconds and maybe 7 or 8 seconds make no difference. However, I sincerely doubt that civil and structural engineers would agree with that notion. |
Then why can't you find one? You seem to make statements all the time which never have evidence to support them.
This is a fair question, but I anticipated it and answered! See below. If you mean, why haven't I personally approached civil engineers, the answer is that I went almost directly from being essentially immobile, to a job where I commute 20+ hours per week. However, a day off is coming.
QUOTE
BTW, I take the fact that nobody has done a survey of civil/structural engineers as a knock against both sides of the debate, though this can also be properly understood as the job of the media. Since the media is dysfunctional, one would have hoped that 911 Truth activists would, themselves, have somehow procured what is to me a rather obviously necessary investigation, but AFAIK, nobody has done so.
An absurd argument. I guess because no one has done a survey with history professors on how many people in the holocaust we can't say for sure if it happened... Heh! The fact is no history professor has peer reviewed a paper on there not being a holocaust. Once again because the horse can't push the cart you call it a draw.
Straw man. I was referring to a survey of civil engineer's intuition, not a survey of civil engineer's acceptance of a well known fact, with tons of evidence behind that fact.
Therefore, an appropriate analogy with your historian/holocaust example would be between how many Ph.D. civil engineers accepted the "reality" of Newton's laws of motion.
Nobody is going to do such a survey, and the reason is perfectly obvious. Nobody is going to do a survey of how many people keep putting gas in their cars, so that they can keep going, either.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Apr 3 2006, 12:01 PM)
QUOTE
I've read other accounts that say the towers oscillated for about four minutes after impact.
I suggest you look at the videos of the second impact again.
I thought you said you were an engineer. There are numerous witness accounts both towers swaying back and forth, I don't think anyone in the CD camp disputes this the towers were over 1360 feet high and over 200 feet wide. A few feet of swaying wouldn1y be noticable.
The CD camp insists that the some coming out of the towers was a sign of weak fires. That was not the opinion of a NYFD deputy assistant chief and other senior firefighters on 9/11.* In an interview he recalled saying on several occasions that they didn’t the resources to put out what he referred to as an ‘enormous’ fire and that the department would loose lots of men. Other senior firefighters agreed with him.
He also stated that he predicted a local collapse and though they had 3 hours because believed the columns were protected with concrete.
He remembered being told the building was “structurally unstable” and said nothing about hearing explosions before getting these reports.
Below are some excerpts from his interview. There were many transcription errors, typos and misspellings in the original. I corrected most of them for readability.
*Black smoke of course is not always a sign of an “oxygen poor” fire but is often indicative of what is being burned. Jim Fetzer founder of st/911 knows this of course. In his writings about the Wellstone crash he pointed out that hydrocarbon fires, or at least jet fuel fires, normally give off black smoke even when there is no lack of oxygen.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/fbicoverup.pdf&e=9797 , http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...SASSINATION.pdf ,
http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...ator.pdf&e=9797
He also stated that he predicted a local collapse and though they had 3 hours because believed the columns were protected with concrete.
He remembered being told the building was “structurally unstable” and said nothing about hearing explosions before getting these reports.
Below are some excerpts from his interview. There were many transcription errors, typos and misspellings in the original. I corrected most of them for readability.
QUOTE
NYFD interview with Deputy Assistant Chief of Safety Albert Turi, October 23rd, 2001.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...Turi_Albert.txt
…At some point after I was going over the Brooklyn Bridge, I could clearly see the tower and I started counting what I thought was how many floors were involved in the fire, and from that vantage point I thought we had somewhere between six and eight floors of fire floor areas that I would consider to be fully involved ir fire, and I said, “Joe, Joe, this is no accident. It’s a clear day. No one could hit this thing by accident. This is something intentional.”
Q. And Joe, chief, is --
A. Joe Chiafari. He’s a lieutenant that works here. Then I further stated that we do not have the capability to put that many floors of fire out. I knew right from the start that there was no way this Fire Department could extinguish six or eight floors of fire fully involved in a high-rise building. It’s just not possible because we don’t have the means to do it.
[…]
…then I went over to talk to Chiefs Callan and Hayden, who were the incident commanders, Chief Callan being the incident commander, Chief Hayden being the deputy chief in the 1st Division who had responded, and I stated to them that there is no possible way that we could extinguish this fire, and they were certainly in agreement with that, and that it should strictly be an evacuation procedure.
[…]
(I)had a brief discussion with Chief Ganci and I told him that, “Pete, we’re going to lose some people here. It’s inevitable. It’s too tremendous. We’re probably going to lose some people…”
Q. Just stopping for a second, chief, when you said that to Chief Ganci, did he respond in any way?
A. He just nodded in agreement. We were looking at two large bodies of fires that neither of us in our 33-year careers had ever seen anything that enormous. So it’s pretty muon, you know, I thought we would lose a company or two possibly. I didn’t think we would come out of ch~s unscathed at all. it was just too enormous.
[…]
And I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building, which I mistakenly thought was block construction. After further investigation, of course, after the fact, it wasn’t block construction. The elevator cores were encased in sheetrock actually.
Q. For the record, would you tell us what block construction is?
A. Yes. Block is usually like a four-inch cement block that’s laid and that’s what encloses elevator shafts. In the construction of the Trade Center, due to the high speed and the travel distance of the elevators, they used a sheetrock construction over steel so there was more give for the wind forces created by the elevators. They felt that it would probably have knocked the block over. So I thought we would be pretty good for about three hours. Three hours is usually what the fire walls are rated for in high-rise construction. It’s usually a three-hour rating. We didn’t have any indications of any structural stability at that time. Then Steve Mosiello, Chief Ganci’s executive assistant, came over to the command post and he said “we’re getting reports from OEM that the buildings are not structurally sound”, and of course that got our attention really quick, and Pete said, “well, who are we getting these reports from?” And then Steve brought an EMT person over to the command post who was I think sent as a runner to tell us this and Chief Ganci questioned him, “where are we getting these reports?” And his answer was something, you know, ‘we’re not sure, OEM is just reporting this’. And within ten seconds of that conversation, I was writing on my clipboard -- can I use foul language on this?
C. Absolutely…h
[…]
The next thing I heard was Pete say “what the *** is this?” And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this building was collapsing…
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...Turi_Albert.txt
…At some point after I was going over the Brooklyn Bridge, I could clearly see the tower and I started counting what I thought was how many floors were involved in the fire, and from that vantage point I thought we had somewhere between six and eight floors of fire floor areas that I would consider to be fully involved ir fire, and I said, “Joe, Joe, this is no accident. It’s a clear day. No one could hit this thing by accident. This is something intentional.”
Q. And Joe, chief, is --
A. Joe Chiafari. He’s a lieutenant that works here. Then I further stated that we do not have the capability to put that many floors of fire out. I knew right from the start that there was no way this Fire Department could extinguish six or eight floors of fire fully involved in a high-rise building. It’s just not possible because we don’t have the means to do it.
[…]
…then I went over to talk to Chiefs Callan and Hayden, who were the incident commanders, Chief Callan being the incident commander, Chief Hayden being the deputy chief in the 1st Division who had responded, and I stated to them that there is no possible way that we could extinguish this fire, and they were certainly in agreement with that, and that it should strictly be an evacuation procedure.
[…]
(I)had a brief discussion with Chief Ganci and I told him that, “Pete, we’re going to lose some people here. It’s inevitable. It’s too tremendous. We’re probably going to lose some people…”
Q. Just stopping for a second, chief, when you said that to Chief Ganci, did he respond in any way?
A. He just nodded in agreement. We were looking at two large bodies of fires that neither of us in our 33-year careers had ever seen anything that enormous. So it’s pretty muon, you know, I thought we would lose a company or two possibly. I didn’t think we would come out of ch~s unscathed at all. it was just too enormous.
[…]
And I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building, which I mistakenly thought was block construction. After further investigation, of course, after the fact, it wasn’t block construction. The elevator cores were encased in sheetrock actually.
Q. For the record, would you tell us what block construction is?
A. Yes. Block is usually like a four-inch cement block that’s laid and that’s what encloses elevator shafts. In the construction of the Trade Center, due to the high speed and the travel distance of the elevators, they used a sheetrock construction over steel so there was more give for the wind forces created by the elevators. They felt that it would probably have knocked the block over. So I thought we would be pretty good for about three hours. Three hours is usually what the fire walls are rated for in high-rise construction. It’s usually a three-hour rating. We didn’t have any indications of any structural stability at that time. Then Steve Mosiello, Chief Ganci’s executive assistant, came over to the command post and he said “we’re getting reports from OEM that the buildings are not structurally sound”, and of course that got our attention really quick, and Pete said, “well, who are we getting these reports from?” And then Steve brought an EMT person over to the command post who was I think sent as a runner to tell us this and Chief Ganci questioned him, “where are we getting these reports?” And his answer was something, you know, ‘we’re not sure, OEM is just reporting this’. And within ten seconds of that conversation, I was writing on my clipboard -- can I use foul language on this?
C. Absolutely…h
[…]
The next thing I heard was Pete say “what the *** is this?” And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this building was collapsing…
*Black smoke of course is not always a sign of an “oxygen poor” fire but is often indicative of what is being burned. Jim Fetzer founder of st/911 knows this of course. In his writings about the Wellstone crash he pointed out that hydrocarbon fires, or at least jet fuel fires, normally give off black smoke even when there is no lack of oxygen.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/fbicoverup.pdf&e=9797 , http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...SASSINATION.pdf ,
http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...ator.pdf&e=9797
QUOTE
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... |
You are assuming that a large number of politicians are both non-corrupt AND in possession of something incriminating. I doubt the non-corrupt ones are in the right circles to have any dirt.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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%??? |
Apples and oranges. I am an unknown, someone who could not be a whistleblower or have any incriminating evidence. I'm one of thousands. The risks are miniscule. The risks would be higher if I had potentially damaging information I could release.
Again you are assuming there are scores of politicians who would be willing, and be in a position, to speak out (even when it might lead to a downfall of the current political system). This is pure subjecture on your part. Let's stick to physics.
QUOTE
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.
If there is any reasonable doubt, which there is, it should be examined (Your other examples are not reasonable). Especially when the verdict has led to BILLIONS spent on foreign wars which could have been avoided if a more open investigation was done. They attacked Afghanistan while Bin Laden was still denying it, and yet now the OCTs look back and spout "But Bin Laden admitted it!". Just the fact that they were so quick to conclude with certainty who was guilty should raise an eyebrow. How thorough could a single day of investigation be? Oh yeah, I forgot, the highjackers conveniently left an conspicuous trail right at the end. Korans and flight manuals left in cars.. no, never question the FBI, they are 100% trustworthy.. and we should always take their evidence at face value.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
If there is any reasonable doubt, which there is, it should be examined (Your other examples are not reasonable). Especially when the verdict has led to BILLIONS spent on foreign wars which could have been avoided if a more open investigation was done. They attacked Afghanistan while Bin Laden was still denying it, and yet now the OCTs look back and spout "But Bin Laden admitted it!". Just the fact that they were so quick to conclude with certainty who was guilty should raise an eyebrow. How thorough could a single day of investigation be? Oh yeah, I forgot, the highjackers conveniently left an conspicuous trail right at the end. Korans and flight manuals left in cars.. no, never question the FBI, they are 100% trustworthy.. and we should always take their evidence at face value.
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.
What intel, pre-9/11 or Iraq?
Do you think Bin Laden is a clever guy? Do you think he was well versed in the US political system and the neocons Straussian philosophy? If so, does that mean he knew he was giving the neocons enormous political capital and the perfect opportunity to put their philosophy into action? Forgive me if I have trouble figuring out the guys motives in aiding the emergence of a Straussian enemy that would benefit the neocons (and his timing was rather interesting, just after the neocons came to power). His actions served the neocons. Either this was done knowingly, or he's a very inept terrorist, not a mastermind. (Or perhaps he thinks he's a Bond villain - commits the perfect crime then does something idiotic like filming himself owning up)
QUOTE
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.
Let's not get bogged down in what is or isn't insulting. My style is what it is. There are enough insults flung around in this thread that it should be like water off a ducks back by this stage.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Let's not get bogged down in what is or isn't insulting. My style is what it is. There are enough insults flung around in this thread that it should be like water off a ducks back by this stage.
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.
Sorry, but the position of the kink proves nothing. The kink may well match the location that was weakened by the collapse of the penthouse. But if the penthouse collapse was a product of CD, as I believe likely, then it could be used by either side.
QUOTE
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.
Okay then, write to Dr Sunder and tell him to stop doubting the preliminary report.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Okay then, write to Dr Sunder and tell him to stop doubting the preliminary report.
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.
When you make poorly thought through claims (such as the kink being inconsistent with CD), then I will point them out.
QUOTE
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. QUOTE 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."
The first quote says nothing about whether CD is the OBVIOUS conclusion, only that its a possibility that fits better than you claim it does.
The second quote was succeeded by a question that began "Seriously,", which should make it obvious that I wasn't being completely serious with that comment.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
I was referring to your statement that
QUOTE
To be honest, the more I see those CD's the more they DON'T look like CD.
to which I responded
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To be honest, the more I see those CD's the more they DON'T look like CD. |
to which I responded
Seriously, what are these differences you are only now starting to spot?
Your statement implies that you are seeing more differences as time goes by. So I asked what differences you are ONLY NOW starting to see. So, if you were following the conversation, you would know I was only talking about the differences you'd noticed RECENTLY, not your base arguements you've always used. So I asked if the kink was all you had in terms of WHAT YOU'VE ONLY NOTICED RECENTLY. Clear now?
QUOTE
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.
Okay, I concede. The lack of french structural engineers who've been funded to conducted their own independent study of the WTC collapses PROVES that CD is isn't even a remote possibility. Game over.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Okay, I concede. The lack of french structural engineers who've been funded to conducted their own independent study of the WTC collapses PROVES that CD is isn't even a remote possibility. Game over.
Dr miller from Jones own university said his paper ignore the evidence.
So what, a 5 year old could say exactly the same thing. Doesn't mean they could say exactly what this evidence is that's been ignored, or that they've even read it to begin with.
QUOTE
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.
Okay, then Miller should just shut up until the paper is properly peer-reviewed. The horse should not claim that the cart is easy to pull until the cart is in position, right?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Okay, then Miller should just shut up until the paper is properly peer-reviewed. The horse should not claim that the cart is easy to pull until the cart is in position, right?
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.
So we debunk an entire report on one innaccuracy (though I have not read that part so I won't dismiss it without knowing his reasons). If so that's not good news for FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Omission..
QUOTE
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.
So the "20 storey hole" is from the 20th floor down to the ground? Thanks, I hadn't known that (as you are not very forthcoming on the evidence used to determine the hole dimensions and location, which I keep asking for). The fact that the hole is low down only helps CD, as the chances of the debris penetrating to the core columns becomes lower than I'd thought.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
So the "20 storey hole" is from the 20th floor down to the ground? Thanks, I hadn't known that (as you are not very forthcoming on the evidence used to determine the hole dimensions and location, which I keep asking for). The fact that the hole is low down only helps CD, as the chances of the debris penetrating to the core columns becomes lower than I'd thought.
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?
The bottom half of the pall of smoke (which is the lighter smoke too), does not seem to originate from WTC7. But I never said the fire was "so small", I said that there's no evidence of INTENSE fires in this video. You don't need intense fires to produce a fair amount of smoke.
QUOTE
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.
You are right that they don't tend to show the pall of smoke. But this smoke is not evidence in itself for fires anywhere near intense enough to significantly affect the building. The images of the north side with hardly any fire visible ARE telling though. Apparantly the fire burnt for several hours. If it was so intense on the south side, why had it not spread to other parts of the building? Was the north side mostly devoid of anything that would burn?
The idea of a survey of civil engineers is silly and I believe started in the "clown car". No survey is needed numeroous civil engineers from around the world contributed to or reviewed reports, papers and articles backing the collapse theory. The theory is backed by the ASCE and the AIA. So far no civil, fire or forensic engineers have gone on record as questioning it.
All this noise about them being afraid is utter nonsense people have been spouting 9/11 CT's for 4 1/2 and none of them have suffered any ill effects to speak off as a result. All those profs are still teaching at the same schools were they were teaching when this started. This is just a CT way of rationalizing away the fact that they don't have ant expert backing for their theories
I know CT's will all get into a clamour over that college student who goy shot in Minneapolis but even fetzer says "there seems to be no connection between his membership and his death. It is my opinion that what I was told is accurate and complete relative to my inquiry and that we are going to know much more very soon. ". http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/EmailNews29Mar2006.html Let's not forget there were 10 recent armed robberies in that area and that this guy was a minor player what would be accomlished by bumping him off?
All this noise about them being afraid is utter nonsense people have been spouting 9/11 CT's for 4 1/2 and none of them have suffered any ill effects to speak off as a result. All those profs are still teaching at the same schools were they were teaching when this started. This is just a CT way of rationalizing away the fact that they don't have ant expert backing for their theories
I know CT's will all get into a clamour over that college student who goy shot in Minneapolis but even fetzer says "there seems to be no connection between his membership and his death. It is my opinion that what I was told is accurate and complete relative to my inquiry and that we are going to know much more very soon. ". http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/EmailNews29Mar2006.html Let's not forget there were 10 recent armed robberies in that area and that this guy was a minor player what would be accomlished by bumping him off?
QUOTE
newtonnjd writes:
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
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
Yes!!!! There is a notch in the roofline. As a matter of fact tyhere is one on each side of the south face. This is a detail you would know had you bothered to read the NIST report on WTC 7
You would also know that the damage spoken of occurs to the center of the building starting at about the 20th floor, though some witnesses put it higher.
The structural damage to the SW corner started at the 18th floor. That damage is not visible in your pictures either. That small fire in the corner is just above the damage to the corner. This means that your pictures mean nothing other than to point out areas where there is no damage where no one claims there to be damage.
The smoke in the pictures comes from basically two sources, WTC 7 itself and WTC 6, that is directly accross the street from WTC 7 and is in the foreground of these pictures. This illustrates one of the difficulties of getting photos of the south side of WTC 7. Directly south is WTC 6 - on fire and directly south of that the remains of WTC 1 - on fire.
QUOTE
Yeah, and from the references you give to back up the refutation of this specific claim (absolutely none), I really believe you, too.
But I gave you some. That you don't believe them is your business. I don't believe a word you say either. But here are the ones I gave you just incase...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=9&c=y
I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
DEGREES
BES Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 1969
MS Stanford University Stanford, California 1970
Engineer Stanford University Stanford, California 1972
Ph.D. Stanford University Stanford, California 1975
Post PhD Diploma International Institute for Hydrologists Delft, The Netherlands 1983
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
1973-74 Auburn University Auburn, Alabama Instructor of Civil Engineering
1974-78 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
1978-87 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1979 Northeastern University Boston, Mass. Visiting Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1987-present Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Professor of Civil Engineering
SERVICE
Department Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2000 - present
Graduate Coordinator, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1985 - 2000
Member, Exec. Committee, Utah Section, American Water Res. Assoc., 1988 - present
Member, Orem City Metropolitan Water Board, 1980 - 1990
Member, Provo City Metropolitan Water Board, 2005 - Present
ORGANIZATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Water Resources Association; Past President twice, Utah Section
American Society for Engineering Education
Tau Beta Pi, Past President, Utah Beta Section
Phi Kappa Phi and Sigma Xi
HONORS AND AWARDS
Karl G. Maeser Distinguished Teaching Award from Brigham Young University, 1988
BYU Blue Key Professor of the Year/Recognition of Excellence Award, 1993
Outstanding College Teacher Award, College of Engineering, 1988
Teacher of the Year Award, Civil Engineering Department, 1986, 1988-89, 1991-94, 1997-98, 2002, and 2004
Utah Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Engineers Joint Council, 1993
Utah Civil Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of ASCE, 1992
Utah Water Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of AWRA, 2001
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php...miller/vita.php
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2
"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display...ss.cfm?uid=1874
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D.
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html
Metamars, your hand waving is entering humming bird speed. Heh!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yeah, and from the references you give to back up the refutation of this specific claim (absolutely none), I really believe you, too. |
But I gave you some. That you don't believe them is your business. I don't believe a word you say either. But here are the ones I gave you just incase...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=9&c=y
I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
DEGREES
BES Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 1969
MS Stanford University Stanford, California 1970
Engineer Stanford University Stanford, California 1972
Ph.D. Stanford University Stanford, California 1975
Post PhD Diploma International Institute for Hydrologists Delft, The Netherlands 1983
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
1973-74 Auburn University Auburn, Alabama Instructor of Civil Engineering
1974-78 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
1978-87 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1979 Northeastern University Boston, Mass. Visiting Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1987-present Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Professor of Civil Engineering
SERVICE
Department Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2000 - present
Graduate Coordinator, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1985 - 2000
Member, Exec. Committee, Utah Section, American Water Res. Assoc., 1988 - present
Member, Orem City Metropolitan Water Board, 1980 - 1990
Member, Provo City Metropolitan Water Board, 2005 - Present
ORGANIZATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Water Resources Association; Past President twice, Utah Section
American Society for Engineering Education
Tau Beta Pi, Past President, Utah Beta Section
Phi Kappa Phi and Sigma Xi
HONORS AND AWARDS
Karl G. Maeser Distinguished Teaching Award from Brigham Young University, 1988
BYU Blue Key Professor of the Year/Recognition of Excellence Award, 1993
Outstanding College Teacher Award, College of Engineering, 1988
Teacher of the Year Award, Civil Engineering Department, 1986, 1988-89, 1991-94, 1997-98, 2002, and 2004
Utah Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Engineers Joint Council, 1993
Utah Civil Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of ASCE, 1992
Utah Water Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of AWRA, 2001
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php...miller/vita.php
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2
"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display...ss.cfm?uid=1874
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D.
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html
Metamars, your hand waving is entering humming bird speed. Heh!
And I didn't SAY that any building fell faster than free fall. You're really losing it, aren't you?
You haven't proved that. No matter how many times you wave your hands and stomp your feet you didn't. You haven't brought ANY conclusive evidence. The evidence you think you're bringing is laughable. "Look at this grainy internet video taken from a quarter mile away! It prove! it came down in less than free fall sspeed!" HEHEHE. Wave away...
QUOTE
This is a fair question, but I anticipated it and answered! See below. If you mean, why haven't I personally approached civil engineers, the answer is that I went almost directly from being essentially immobile, to a job where I commute 20+ hours per week. However, a day off is coming.
Yeah, let me know how that works out... The point is you people have had 4 years to do so and haven't. The idea that this couldn't be done by someone else is also absurd. Make excuses much, do you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is a fair question, but I anticipated it and answered! See below. If you mean, why haven't I personally approached civil engineers, the answer is that I went almost directly from being essentially immobile, to a job where I commute 20+ hours per week. However, a day off is coming. |
Yeah, let me know how that works out... The point is you people have had 4 years to do so and haven't. The idea that this couldn't be done by someone else is also absurd. Make excuses much, do you?
Therefore, an appropriate analogy with your historian/holocaust example would be between how many Ph.D. civil engineers accepted the "reality" of Newton's laws of motion.
Simply put as many as didn't challenge it when he did it. Take about staw men. GEEZ This from someone obviously dancing on the yellow brick road. Click your heals twice will ya! "There's no place like reality, there's no place like reality..."
QUOTE
Yes!!!! There is a notch in the roofline. As a matter of fact tyhere is one on each side of the south face. This is a detail you would know had you bothered to read the NIST report on WTC 7
I'd rather do my own research seeing as the head of NIST doesn't feel that report is in any way definitive.
Regarding the flashes in the wtc1 collapse vid, Scott has
No. If you watch it closely you'll see that some of the flashes occur several times in quick succession at exactly the same location. So it could not be falling debris.
QUOTE
I think he is takling about the metal debris flying from the tower. (Alumnium etc.)
No. If you watch it closely you'll see that some of the flashes occur several times in quick succession at exactly the same location. So it could not be falling debris.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 3 2006, 05:46 PM)
The CD camp insists that the some coming out of the towers was a sign of weak fires. That was not the opinion of a NYFD deputy assistant chief and other senior firefighters on 9/11.* In an interview he recalled saying on several occasions that they didn’t the resources to put out what he referred to as an ‘enormous’ fire and that the department would loose lots of men. Other senior firefighters agreed with him.
He also stated that he predicted a local collapse and though they had 3 hours because believed the columns were protected with concrete.
He remembered being told the building was “structurally unstable” and said nothing about hearing explosions before getting these reports.
Below are some excerpts from his interview. There were many transcription errors, typos and misspellings in the original. I corrected most of them for readability.
*Black smoke of course is not always a sign of an “oxygen poor” fire but is often indicative of what is being burned. Jim Fetzer founder of st/911 knows this of course. In his writings about the Wellstone crash he pointed out that hydrocarbon fires, or at least jet fuel fires, normally give off black smoke even when there is no lack of oxygen.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/fbicoverup.pdf&e=9797 , http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...SASSINATION.pdf ,
http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...ator.pdf&e=9797
I'm glad you highlighted this comment:
*Black smoke of course is not always a sign of an “oxygen poor” fire but is often indicative of what is being burned. Jim Fetzer founder of st/911 knows this of course. In his writings about the Wellstone crash he pointed out that hydrocarbon fires, or at least jet fuel fires, normally give off black smoke even when there is no lack of oxygen.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/fbicoverup.pdf&e=9797 , http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...SASSINATION.pdf ,
http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...ator.pdf&e=9797
I'm glad you highlighted this comment:
And I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building
THIS is what the firefighters thought the danger was, NOT that the building would completely disintegrate in seconds.
He also stated that he predicted a local collapse and though they had 3 hours because believed the columns were protected with concrete.
He remembered being told the building was “structurally unstable” and said nothing about hearing explosions before getting these reports.
Below are some excerpts from his interview. There were many transcription errors, typos and misspellings in the original. I corrected most of them for readability.
QUOTE
NYFD interview with Deputy Assistant Chief of Safety Albert Turi, October 23rd, 2001.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...Turi_Albert.txt
…At some point after I was going over the Brooklyn Bridge, I could clearly see the tower and I started counting what I thought was how many floors were involved in the fire, and from that vantage point I thought we had somewhere between six and eight floors of fire floor areas that I would consider to be fully involved ir fire, and I said, “Joe, Joe, this is no accident. It’s a clear day. No one could hit this thing by accident. This is something intentional.”
Q. And Joe, chief, is --
A. Joe Chiafari. He’s a lieutenant that works here. Then I further stated that we do not have the capability to put that many floors of fire out. I knew right from the start that there was no way this Fire Department could extinguish six or eight floors of fire fully involved in a high-rise building. It’s just not possible because we don’t have the means to do it.
[…]
…then I went over to talk to Chiefs Callan and Hayden, who were the incident commanders, Chief Callan being the incident commander, Chief Hayden being the deputy chief in the 1st Division who had responded, and I stated to them that there is no possible way that we could extinguish this fire, and they were certainly in agreement with that, and that it should strictly be an evacuation procedure.
[…]
(I)had a brief discussion with Chief Ganci and I told him that, “Pete, we’re going to lose some people here. It’s inevitable. It’s too tremendous. We’re probably going to lose some people…”
Q. Just stopping for a second, chief, when you said that to Chief Ganci, did he respond in any way?
A. He just nodded in agreement. We were looking at two large bodies of fires that neither of us in our 33-year careers had ever seen anything that enormous. So it’s pretty muon, you know, I thought we would lose a company or two possibly. I didn’t think we would come out of ch~s unscathed at all. it was just too enormous.
[…]
And I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building, which I mistakenly thought was block construction. After further investigation, of course, after the fact, it wasn’t block construction. The elevator cores were encased in sheetrock actually.
Q. For the record, would you tell us what block construction is?
A. Yes. Block is usually like a four-inch cement block that’s laid and that’s what encloses elevator shafts. In the construction of the Trade Center, due to the high speed and the travel distance of the elevators, they used a sheetrock construction over steel so there was more give for the wind forces created by the elevators. They felt that it would probably have knocked the block over. So I thought we would be pretty good for about three hours. Three hours is usually what the fire walls are rated for in high-rise construction. It’s usually a three-hour rating. We didn’t have any indications of any structural stability at that time. Then Steve Mosiello, Chief Ganci’s executive assistant, came over to the command post and he said “we’re getting reports from OEM that the buildings are not structurally sound”, and of course that got our attention really quick, and Pete said, “well, who are we getting these reports from?” And then Steve brought an EMT person over to the command post who was I think sent as a runner to tell us this and Chief Ganci questioned him, “where are we getting these reports?” And his answer was something, you know, ‘we’re not sure, OEM is just reporting this’. And within ten seconds of that conversation, I was writing on my clipboard -- can I use foul language on this?
C. Absolutely…h
[…]
The next thing I heard was Pete say “what the *** is this?” And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this building was collapsing…
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...Turi_Albert.txt
…At some point after I was going over the Brooklyn Bridge, I could clearly see the tower and I started counting what I thought was how many floors were involved in the fire, and from that vantage point I thought we had somewhere between six and eight floors of fire floor areas that I would consider to be fully involved ir fire, and I said, “Joe, Joe, this is no accident. It’s a clear day. No one could hit this thing by accident. This is something intentional.”
Q. And Joe, chief, is --
A. Joe Chiafari. He’s a lieutenant that works here. Then I further stated that we do not have the capability to put that many floors of fire out. I knew right from the start that there was no way this Fire Department could extinguish six or eight floors of fire fully involved in a high-rise building. It’s just not possible because we don’t have the means to do it.
[…]
…then I went over to talk to Chiefs Callan and Hayden, who were the incident commanders, Chief Callan being the incident commander, Chief Hayden being the deputy chief in the 1st Division who had responded, and I stated to them that there is no possible way that we could extinguish this fire, and they were certainly in agreement with that, and that it should strictly be an evacuation procedure.
[…]
(I)had a brief discussion with Chief Ganci and I told him that, “Pete, we’re going to lose some people here. It’s inevitable. It’s too tremendous. We’re probably going to lose some people…”
Q. Just stopping for a second, chief, when you said that to Chief Ganci, did he respond in any way?
A. He just nodded in agreement. We were looking at two large bodies of fires that neither of us in our 33-year careers had ever seen anything that enormous. So it’s pretty muon, you know, I thought we would lose a company or two possibly. I didn’t think we would come out of ch~s unscathed at all. it was just too enormous.
[…]
And I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building, which I mistakenly thought was block construction. After further investigation, of course, after the fact, it wasn’t block construction. The elevator cores were encased in sheetrock actually.
Q. For the record, would you tell us what block construction is?
A. Yes. Block is usually like a four-inch cement block that’s laid and that’s what encloses elevator shafts. In the construction of the Trade Center, due to the high speed and the travel distance of the elevators, they used a sheetrock construction over steel so there was more give for the wind forces created by the elevators. They felt that it would probably have knocked the block over. So I thought we would be pretty good for about three hours. Three hours is usually what the fire walls are rated for in high-rise construction. It’s usually a three-hour rating. We didn’t have any indications of any structural stability at that time. Then Steve Mosiello, Chief Ganci’s executive assistant, came over to the command post and he said “we’re getting reports from OEM that the buildings are not structurally sound”, and of course that got our attention really quick, and Pete said, “well, who are we getting these reports from?” And then Steve brought an EMT person over to the command post who was I think sent as a runner to tell us this and Chief Ganci questioned him, “where are we getting these reports?” And his answer was something, you know, ‘we’re not sure, OEM is just reporting this’. And within ten seconds of that conversation, I was writing on my clipboard -- can I use foul language on this?
C. Absolutely…h
[…]
The next thing I heard was Pete say “what the *** is this?” And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this building was collapsing…
*Black smoke of course is not always a sign of an “oxygen poor” fire but is often indicative of what is being burned. Jim Fetzer founder of st/911 knows this of course. In his writings about the Wellstone crash he pointed out that hydrocarbon fires, or at least jet fuel fires, normally give off black smoke even when there is no lack of oxygen.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/fbicoverup.pdf&e=9797 , http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...SASSINATION.pdf ,
http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...ator.pdf&e=9797
I'm glad you highlighted this comment:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NYFD interview with Deputy Assistant Chief of Safety Albert Turi, October 23rd, 2001. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...Turi_Albert.txt …At some point after I was going over the Brooklyn Bridge, I could clearly see the tower and I started counting what I thought was how many floors were involved in the fire, and from that vantage point I thought we had somewhere between six and eight floors of fire floor areas that I would consider to be fully involved ir fire, and I said, “Joe, Joe, this is no accident. It’s a clear day. No one could hit this thing by accident. This is something intentional.” Q. And Joe, chief, is -- A. Joe Chiafari. He’s a lieutenant that works here. Then I further stated that we do not have the capability to put that many floors of fire out. I knew right from the start that there was no way this Fire Department could extinguish six or eight floors of fire fully involved in a high-rise building. It’s just not possible because we don’t have the means to do it. […] …then I went over to talk to Chiefs Callan and Hayden, who were the incident commanders, Chief Callan being the incident commander, Chief Hayden being the deputy chief in the 1st Division who had responded, and I stated to them that there is no possible way that we could extinguish this fire, and they were certainly in agreement with that, and that it should strictly be an evacuation procedure. […] (I)had a brief discussion with Chief Ganci and I told him that, “Pete, we’re going to lose some people here. It’s inevitable. It’s too tremendous. We’re probably going to lose some people…” Q. Just stopping for a second, chief, when you said that to Chief Ganci, did he respond in any way? A. He just nodded in agreement. We were looking at two large bodies of fires that neither of us in our 33-year careers had ever seen anything that enormous. So it’s pretty muon, you know, I thought we would lose a company or two possibly. I didn’t think we would come out of ch~s unscathed at all. it was just too enormous. […] And I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building, which I mistakenly thought was block construction. After further investigation, of course, after the fact, it wasn’t block construction. The elevator cores were encased in sheetrock actually. Q. For the record, would you tell us what block construction is? A. Yes. Block is usually like a four-inch cement block that’s laid and that’s what encloses elevator shafts. In the construction of the Trade Center, due to the high speed and the travel distance of the elevators, they used a sheetrock construction over steel so there was more give for the wind forces created by the elevators. They felt that it would probably have knocked the block over. So I thought we would be pretty good for about three hours. Three hours is usually what the fire walls are rated for in high-rise construction. It’s usually a three-hour rating. We didn’t have any indications of any structural stability at that time. Then Steve Mosiello, Chief Ganci’s executive assistant, came over to the command post and he said “we’re getting reports from OEM that the buildings are not structurally sound”, and of course that got our attention really quick, and Pete said, “well, who are we getting these reports from?” And then Steve brought an EMT person over to the command post who was I think sent as a runner to tell us this and Chief Ganci questioned him, “where are we getting these reports?” And his answer was something, you know, ‘we’re not sure, OEM is just reporting this’. And within ten seconds of that conversation, I was writing on my clipboard -- can I use foul language on this? C. Absolutely…h […] The next thing I heard was Pete say “what the *** is this?” And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this building was collapsing… |
*Black smoke of course is not always a sign of an “oxygen poor” fire but is often indicative of what is being burned. Jim Fetzer founder of st/911 knows this of course. In his writings about the Wellstone crash he pointed out that hydrocarbon fires, or at least jet fuel fires, normally give off black smoke even when there is no lack of oxygen.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/fbicoverup.pdf&e=9797 , http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...SASSINATION.pdf ,
http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...ator.pdf&e=9797
I'm glad you highlighted this comment:
And I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building
THIS is what the firefighters thought the danger was, NOT that the building would completely disintegrate in seconds.
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 2 2006, 11:52 PM)
I don't know the status of Gordon's paper, you have to ask him. His background is listed on Scholars for 911 Truth.
There are two Gordons listed on the st/911 site
Gordon Ginn (AM) Motives behind attack
and
Gordon Ross (AM) Mechanical engineering, Production engineering
which one is he. If he is the former is he actually an engineer? If so does he have any relevant background in building construction and materials or is his background irrelevant like Dr. Wood whose area of expertise is dental fillings?
Of course you don't find them convincing. I doubt you would find anything that counters you fanatsy compelling. If God himself came to you and told you the towers fell due to the impacts and fires you say he was part of ther conspiracy!! (I say that as an Agnostic).
Of course you don't find them convincing. I doubt you would find anything that counters you fanatsy compelling. If God himself came to you and told you the towers fell due to the impacts and fires you say he was part of ther conspiracy!! (I say that as an Agnostic).
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 said you need to propose a reasonable alternative NOT that you needed to prove anything. In the context of your disintegrating spire theory that was reasonable. All you seemed to be saying was it was "uber weird" and thus the PTB/CIA/MIC/PNAC must be responsible without offer an explaination as to what they did to it and why.
I remember you insisting we had to debunk you even though you hadn't produce the slightest sliver of evidence in favor of your theory.
I imagine you meant CIVIL engineers, as EE's and forest engineers etc wouldn't be good arbiters of such a paper. So then you agree that st/911's claim that Jones' paper was peer reviewed is BS. It passed peer review for an obscure Marxist economics journal whose editor is a confirmed 9/11 CT and for a 9/11 book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. I don't know about the the journal but Griffin told me none of the reviewers were engineers.
I imagine you meant CIVIL engineers, as EE's and forest engineers etc wouldn't be good arbiters of such a paper. So then you agree that st/911's claim that Jones' paper was peer reviewed is BS. It passed peer review for an obscure Marxist economics journal whose editor is a confirmed 9/11 CT and for a 9/11 book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. I don't know about the the journal but Griffin told me none of the reviewers were engineers.
Lol finding a biologist Ph.D. who supports creationism. Yes, there are two or three, but they are in a tiny minority.
I've heard about a biochemist but never any biologists. Do you have any references?
If you want to relocate to Brazil I'll see if I can hook you up
There are two Gordons listed on the st/911 site
Gordon Ginn (AM) Motives behind attack
and
Gordon Ross (AM) Mechanical engineering, Production engineering
which one is he. If he is the former is he actually an engineer? If so does he have any relevant background in building construction and materials or is his background irrelevant like Dr. Wood whose area of expertise is dental fillings?
QUOTE
The "proofs" offered at apollohoax tend to be as convincing as the "proofs" offered here. .
Of course you don't find them convincing. I doubt you would find anything that counters you fanatsy compelling. If God himself came to you and told you the towers fell due to the impacts and fires you say he was part of ther conspiracy!! (I say that as an Agnostic).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The "proofs" offered at apollohoax tend to be as convincing as the "proofs" offered here. . |
Of course you don't find them convincing. I doubt you would find anything that counters you fanatsy compelling. If God himself came to you and told you the towers fell due to the impacts and fires you say he was part of ther conspiracy!! (I say that as an Agnostic).
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 said you need to propose a reasonable alternative NOT that you needed to prove anything. In the context of your disintegrating spire theory that was reasonable. All you seemed to be saying was it was "uber weird" and thus the PTB/CIA/MIC/PNAC must be responsible without offer an explaination as to what they did to it and why.
I remember you insisting we had to debunk you even though you hadn't produce the slightest sliver of evidence in favor of your theory.
QUOTE
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.
I imagine you meant CIVIL engineers, as EE's and forest engineers etc wouldn't be good arbiters of such a paper. So then you agree that st/911's claim that Jones' paper was peer reviewed is BS. It passed peer review for an obscure Marxist economics journal whose editor is a confirmed 9/11 CT and for a 9/11 book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. I don't know about the the journal but Griffin told me none of the reviewers were engineers.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
I imagine you meant CIVIL engineers, as EE's and forest engineers etc wouldn't be good arbiters of such a paper. So then you agree that st/911's claim that Jones' paper was peer reviewed is BS. It passed peer review for an obscure Marxist economics journal whose editor is a confirmed 9/11 CT and for a 9/11 book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. I don't know about the the journal but Griffin told me none of the reviewers were engineers.
Lol finding a biologist Ph.D. who supports creationism. Yes, there are two or three, but they are in a tiny minority.
I've heard about a biochemist but never any biologists. Do you have any references?
QUOTE
BTW, I thoroughly approve of going to the beach, today, and wish I could follow suit. At least you and I agree on something. 
If you want to relocate to Brazil I'll see if I can hook you up
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 3 2006, 06:36 PM)
I'm glad you highlighted this comment:
THIS is what the firefighters thought the danger was, NOT that the building would completely disintegrate in seconds.
Unlike many CT's I try not to selectively quote.
He was not an engineer of course and in his 33 years of firefighting he never saw anything remotely like ate WTC. None of the fires he'd fought or witnessed or read about also involved structural damage and fire proofing destruction as serious as at the WTC. Case of such intense fires in buildings with steel framed cores are rare. Can you cite any with fireproofing similar to the WTC?
He also said:
THIS is what the firefighters thought the danger was, NOT that the building would completely disintegrate in seconds.
Unlike many CT's I try not to selectively quote.
He was not an engineer of course and in his 33 years of firefighting he never saw anything remotely like ate WTC. None of the fires he'd fought or witnessed or read about also involved structural damage and fire proofing destruction as serious as at the WTC. Case of such intense fires in buildings with steel framed cores are rare. Can you cite any with fireproofing similar to the WTC?
He also said:
I thought we would be pretty good for about three hours. Three hours is usually what the fire walls are rated for in high-rise construction. It’s usually a three-hour rating.
In other words with out fire protecton the steel couldn't be expected to last very long.
Your camp has always insisted that the fires were not intense enough to initiate a collapse and cited the smoke as evidence. A highly experienced firefighter thought otherwise.
Numerous engineers have said once the mass of the upper the area of the towers above the impact zones came crashing down the area below could not resist. The were desighed to bear a the static load of a certain mass not dynamic loads full magnitudes greater. You don't believe it? Great, go find an engineer or some evidence to back your theory.
And thanks for the compliment again by calling me Schneibster. I'm honored to be thought of so highly. Any moderator can see our IP's are from different parts of the country but please continue to show your desperation by THINKING you're attacking me personally. It shows you have nothing but folded airplanes flying around you're emply skull.
Guest_Schneibster posted this on january 16th.......
from this thread.....http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4259&st=75
and here, from page 5 of the same thread, the 'real' physorg member, shniebster, ....
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4259&st=60
it's the one man circle jerk.
i don't know how ANYONE could be 'honoured' to be confused with such a vile human being.
arthur/scheibster/sensible, commen sense/common sense are either all the same person, or a team of people using a common interface.
want some more psychology, now, shnibs(doreen, lol)?
criminals WANT to get caught and punished, and give themselves away in subtle ways.
If there is any reasonable doubt, which there is, it should be examined (Your other examples are not reasonable). ?
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
If there is any reasonable doubt, which there is, it should be examined (Your other examples are not reasonable). ?
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
They attacked Afghanistan while Bin Laden was still denying it, and yet now the OCTs look back and spout "But Bin Laden admitted it!". Just the fact that they were so quick to conclude with certainty who was guilty should raise an eyebrow. How thorough could a single day of investigation be?
That is a topic for anothe thread but the evidence against OBL was very strong which is why beven many Muslim countries and other nations that opposed the 2nd Gulf War backed the invasion.
Did it ever occur to you that they wanted that info to be found? OBL had a dilema he wanted to send the US a message but knew the Taliban would be happy about him openly talking credit for such a direct attack on the US. He probably didn't anticipate how many people would be killed
Did it ever occur to you that they wanted that info to be found? OBL had a dilema he wanted to send the US a message but knew the Taliban would be happy about him openly talking credit for such a direct attack on the US. He probably didn't anticipate how many people would be killed
Okay, I concede. The lack of french structural engineers who've been funded to conducted their own independent study of the WTC collapses PROVES that CD is isn't even a remote possibility. Game over.
You're still evading the issue it's the lack of engineers from anywhere who expressed the slightest doubt that towers collapsed due to the impacts and fires without any help from thermite, explosives deathrays etc
Jones paper AFAIK never will be submitted to proper peer review. Since you are a member of st/911 why don't you ask him and Fetzer why they don't submit it for review in a science or engineering journal rather than a Marxist economics one or a book edited by retired profs of theologt ans English lit?
Jones paper AFAIK never will be submitted to proper peer review. Since you are a member of st/911 why don't you ask him and Fetzer why they don't submit it for review in a science or engineering journal rather than a Marxist economics one or a book edited by retired profs of theologt ans English lit?
So the "20 storey hole" is from the 20th floor down to the ground? Thanks, I hadn't known that (as you are not very forthcoming on the evidence used to determine the hole dimensions and location, which I keep asking for). The fact that the hole is low down only helps CD, as the chances of the debris penetrating to the core columns becomes lower than I'd thought.
He never said it went from the 20th floor to the ground. The witnesses cited on the linked page said it was in the middle of the building which means it would have been between floors 13 and 33 more or less.
I'm not the one assuming. You are assuming every person who would have to be involved is corrupt or in fear of their life for this to work. I make no assumptions. I'm working off history and the evidence of whistleblowers in very small groups. Sometimes, as in the case of WMD these whistleblowers are in the very service of government. Even some from other countries have come out as with the Downing Street Memo. No sir, you ave no evidence to assume something this huge would can be kept secret for long. I could see if the people in the towers were considered less than human by the perps but not their own people. If I'm wrong show me an example of a democratic country which mass murdered it's own people and thought they could get away with it.
It doesn't make sense on any level. If corporations pushed for this why did they choose the symbol of corporatism? If government did this why did they choose the pentagon? Why not the sears tower? The logic doesn't make any sense to me at all...
I'm not the one assuming. You are assuming every person who would have to be involved is corrupt or in fear of their life for this to work. I make no assumptions. I'm working off history and the evidence of whistleblowers in very small groups. Sometimes, as in the case of WMD these whistleblowers are in the very service of government. Even some from other countries have come out as with the Downing Street Memo. No sir, you ave no evidence to assume something this huge would can be kept secret for long. I could see if the people in the towers were considered less than human by the perps but not their own people. If I'm wrong show me an example of a democratic country which mass murdered it's own people and thought they could get away with it.
It doesn't make sense on any level. If corporations pushed for this why did they choose the symbol of corporatism? If government did this why did they choose the pentagon? Why not the sears tower? The logic doesn't make any sense to me at all...
Apples and oranges. I am an unknown, someone who could not be a whistleblower or have any incriminating evidence. I'm one of thousands. The risks are miniscule. The risks would be higher if I had potentially damaging information I could release.
People are targeted all the time for less. But I really don't think you or anyone else on this board is a target. I laugh when people on your side think we are "Disinfomation agents.". Heh! As if the government could care what these people think even if they did it.
It always comes back to this doesn't it. Sorry but everything you said about the government could be 100% true and the towers could have still fallen by fire. One has NOTHING to do with the other. The Physics of the event doesn't care whos in office and what evil they are up to. You will lose everyone like you lost me inserting politics in something which needs none. Because hitler himself could have flown into the buildings and the towers could have fallen due to the fires. As The Rock would say "IT DOESN'T MATTER!"
It always comes back to this doesn't it. Sorry but everything you said about the government could be 100% true and the towers could have still fallen by fire. One has NOTHING to do with the other. The Physics of the event doesn't care whos in office and what evil they are up to. You will lose everyone like you lost me inserting politics in something which needs none. Because hitler himself could have flown into the buildings and the towers could have fallen due to the fires. As The Rock would say "IT DOESN'T MATTER!"
What intel, pre-9/11 or Iraq?
Pre-war intel...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm
Now that's something to sink your teeth into. Maybe a trail would lead from this to Bush paying bin laden, I don't know. This is somehting I doubt but I don't care anyway. We are here talking about the towers.
Sorry but I only give the respect I'm shown. If you insult me you're only going to get insulted back. I prefer no insults on both sides but you don't expect me to take calling my post "Amusing" without an equal reply.
Note that I treat newtesticle different than you. His every post is a childish insult and I'm hoping by responding to him in kind he will stop. At the very minimum I'm not going to take his tantrums.
Sorry but I only give the respect I'm shown. If you insult me you're only going to get insulted back. I prefer no insults on both sides but you don't expect me to take calling my post "Amusing" without an equal reply.
Note that I treat newtesticle different than you. His every post is a childish insult and I'm hoping by responding to him in kind he will stop. At the very minimum I'm not going to take his tantrums.
Do you think Bin Laden is a clever guy?
Why do you think he isn't? He has a degree in civil engineering. Do you have one? He and his men have held back the USSR, do you know anyone who has? Is it because hes arab? Do you think all they can do is drive cabs? I don't understand why you would ask such a question? I think hes a genious. He has people in America blaming someone else for his cimes.
I didn't say it "Proves" anything. I said it's an indication. Just another sign post. Like the fireman saying the building was going to fall from fire. Like the transit on the building. All the evidence together points to a collapse by fire. Not any one thing and not conclusive but it is evidence. Something you really don't have. You say the kink means nothing and I say the speed and semetry of the fall means nothing. I will just respectfully disagree and move on.
I didn't say it "Proves" anything. I said it's an indication. Just another sign post. Like the fireman saying the building was going to fall from fire. Like the transit on the building. All the evidence together points to a collapse by fire. Not any one thing and not conclusive but it is evidence. Something you really don't have. You say the kink means nothing and I say the speed and semetry of the fall means nothing. I will just respectfully disagree and move on.
Okay then, write to Dr Sunder and tell him to stop doubting the preliminary report.
I have a better idea. Write a paper and peer review it in a civil engineering journal. Tell them you know the building was blown up and the evidence is clear. Heh! Let me know how that turns out.
Be respectfull in HOW you point them out. I will take critisism but not insults. Because when you make poorly thought through claims (such as the kink being consistent with CD as the only evidence), then I will point them out as well. I will d respect you as you respect me. Disrespect me and I turn it up a notch higher than you.
Be respectfull in HOW you point them out. I will take critisism but not insults. Because when you make poorly thought through claims (such as the kink being consistent with CD as the only evidence), then I will point them out as well. I will d respect you as you respect me. Disrespect me and I turn it up a notch higher than you.
Your statement implies that you are seeing more differences as time goes by. So I asked what differences you are ONLY NOW starting to see. So, if you were following the conversation, you would know I was only talking about the differences you'd noticed RECENTLY, not your base arguements you've always used. So I asked if the kink was all you had in terms of WHAT YOU'VE ONLY NOTICED RECENTLY. Clear now?
I've used the arguments but I never thought it DIDN'T look like CD until recently. When I began this about 400 pages ago I thought it DID just happen to look like a CD. Now I see things diffferently. Now I see the penthouse fall and other videos which I've only recently looked at with a new light. The light of the inner workings of the collapse. I never put the fires in the windows of the 7th floor together with the penthouse. I had herd of ithe 20 story whole but I even told Schneibster on one post that I thought he could be mistaken with the southwest corner. I then found the quote but never read the whole thing. As I see other CD videos, they tend to have explosions visible on all floors through the windows. Most have debris exploding out. I see nothing similar with the WTC 7. I see what would be expected to be coming out during a normal collapse by fire. Lots of dust but not violently out. I guess I've seen it so many times I can see the differences now. Like when the cop said the building didn't look right. The collapse just doesn't look like a CD anymore to me.
We've been down this road before. You don't NEED all floors on fire. You only need the tower damage/hole and a normal office fire on one floor under the penthouse. You STILL haven't said why you need more.
We've been down this road before. You don't NEED all floors on fire. You only need the tower damage/hole and a normal office fire on one floor under the penthouse. You STILL haven't said why you need more.
You are right that they don't tend to show the pall of smoke. But this smoke is not evidence in itself for fires anywhere near intense enough to significantly affect the building. The images of the north side with hardly any fire visible ARE telling though. Apparantly the fire burnt for several hours. If it was so intense on the south side, why had it not spread to other parts of the building? Was the north side mostly devoid of anything that would burn?
That's just your laymens opinion right? Because you weren't on the scene and you aren't a fire department battalion chief. THEY thought the fire was intence enough. I'm sorry they didn't anticipate people questioning the collapse by fire and didn't take videos of the evidence for their assumption. I'm sure the events at the time were more than enough to forgive their judgement on this.
QUOTE
And I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building
THIS is what the firefighters thought the danger was, NOT that the building would completely disintegrate in seconds.
Unlike many CT's I try not to selectively quote.
He was not an engineer of course and in his 33 years of firefighting he never saw anything remotely like ate WTC. None of the fires he'd fought or witnessed or read about also involved structural damage and fire proofing destruction as serious as at the WTC. Case of such intense fires in buildings with steel framed cores are rare. Can you cite any with fireproofing similar to the WTC?
He also said:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building |
THIS is what the firefighters thought the danger was, NOT that the building would completely disintegrate in seconds.
Unlike many CT's I try not to selectively quote.
He was not an engineer of course and in his 33 years of firefighting he never saw anything remotely like ate WTC. None of the fires he'd fought or witnessed or read about also involved structural damage and fire proofing destruction as serious as at the WTC. Case of such intense fires in buildings with steel framed cores are rare. Can you cite any with fireproofing similar to the WTC?
He also said:
I thought we would be pretty good for about three hours. Three hours is usually what the fire walls are rated for in high-rise construction. It’s usually a three-hour rating.
In other words with out fire protecton the steel couldn't be expected to last very long.
Your camp has always insisted that the fires were not intense enough to initiate a collapse and cited the smoke as evidence. A highly experienced firefighter thought otherwise.
Numerous engineers have said once the mass of the upper the area of the towers above the impact zones came crashing down the area below could not resist. The were desighed to bear a the static load of a certain mass not dynamic loads full magnitudes greater. You don't believe it? Great, go find an engineer or some evidence to back your theory.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 01:05 PM)
And thanks for the compliment again by calling me Schneibster. I'm honored to be thought of so highly. Any moderator can see our IP's are from different parts of the country but please continue to show your desperation by THINKING you're attacking me personally. It shows you have nothing but folded airplanes flying around you're emply skull.
Guest_Schneibster posted this on january 16th.......
from this thread.....http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4259&st=75
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
he IS ignoring any data that doesn't support the official lie, though. squibs. molten metal. the fact that most of the tower was undamaged, and yet somehow offered ALMOST no resistance to collapse, allowing the mass to ACCELERATE as it 'picked up momentum(without losing any momentum due to the resistance of the INCREASINGLY STRONGER base of the tower. he also like to ignore that the core was standing with no more 'plungers' or pushing and pulling 'trusses', and yet still managed to collapse on it self, losing the angular momentum that it had as it STARTED to tip, and then fell STRAIGHT DOWN in what AMY have been freefall, and was MOST certainly NEARLY FREEFALL. Moron....I only ignore illogic conspiracy nuts like you. Arthur |
and here, from page 5 of the same thread, the 'real' physorg member, shniebster, ....
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4259&st=60
QUOTE
Great minds think alike, Arthur. 
it's the one man circle jerk.
i don't know how ANYONE could be 'honoured' to be confused with such a vile human being.
arthur/scheibster/sensible, commen sense/common sense are either all the same person, or a team of people using a common interface.
want some more psychology, now, shnibs(doreen, lol)?
criminals WANT to get caught and punished, and give themselves away in subtle ways.
[QUOTE]
Unlike many CT's I try not to selectively quote.[QUOTE]
Yes you do Len.
[/QUOTE]Your camp has always insisted that the fires were not intense enough to initiate a collapse and cited the smoke as evidence. A highly experienced firefighter thought otherwise.[QUOTE]
No one has said collapse wasn't a possibilty. It has always been said global, symmetrical collapse at near free-fall speeds was very improbable, nearly impossible with the damage scenario you are trying desparately to convince us of. Quit twisting if you can, but we understand if you can't. You have nothing else.
Unlike many CT's I try not to selectively quote.[QUOTE]
Yes you do Len.
[/QUOTE]Your camp has always insisted that the fires were not intense enough to initiate a collapse and cited the smoke as evidence. A highly experienced firefighter thought otherwise.[QUOTE]
No one has said collapse wasn't a possibilty. It has always been said global, symmetrical collapse at near free-fall speeds was very improbable, nearly impossible with the damage scenario you are trying desparately to convince us of. Quit twisting if you can, but we understand if you can't. You have nothing else.
Re firemens quotes -
A. He just nodded in agreement. We were looking at two large bodies of fires that neither of us in our 33-year careers had ever seen anything that enormous. So it’s pretty muon, you know, I thought we would lose a company or two possibly. I didn’t think we would come out of ch~s unscathed at all. it was just too enormous.
[…]
And I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building --
--
Where is the evidence to support "anything that enormous"? It simply does not exist.
Foxx has shown time and time again there were no enormous fires. Video evidence shows there were no enormous fires.
Perhaps the confusion comes from the enormity of the problem, ie fighting fires at such levels, and the EXPECTATION that the fires would evolve into - "fires that had burned out of control"
All the available evidence shows the opposite, the fires died down. Or was the fireman looking past the woman at the edge able to see what no one else has seen - the invisible infernos.
Not one aspect of this ludicrous tale hangs together - lets hope that those peddling it do.
A. He just nodded in agreement. We were looking at two large bodies of fires that neither of us in our 33-year careers had ever seen anything that enormous. So it’s pretty muon, you know, I thought we would lose a company or two possibly. I didn’t think we would come out of ch~s unscathed at all. it was just too enormous.
[…]
And I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building --
--
Where is the evidence to support "anything that enormous"? It simply does not exist.
Foxx has shown time and time again there were no enormous fires. Video evidence shows there were no enormous fires.
Perhaps the confusion comes from the enormity of the problem, ie fighting fires at such levels, and the EXPECTATION that the fires would evolve into - "fires that had burned out of control"
All the available evidence shows the opposite, the fires died down. Or was the fireman looking past the woman at the edge able to see what no one else has seen - the invisible infernos.
Not one aspect of this ludicrous tale hangs together - lets hope that those peddling it do.
LONG LIVE DOREEN!!!! WILDBILL????
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 3 2006, 07:36 PM)
LONG LIVE DOREEN!!!! WILDBILL????
and CHUCKLES and HEH!!!!
and CHUCKLES and HEH!!!!
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 3 2006, 06:06 PM)
QUOTE
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.
If there is any reasonable doubt, which there is, it should be examined (Your other examples are not reasonable). ?
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
If there is any reasonable doubt, which there is, it should be examined (Your other examples are not reasonable). ?
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
They attacked Afghanistan while Bin Laden was still denying it, and yet now the OCTs look back and spout "But Bin Laden admitted it!". Just the fact that they were so quick to conclude with certainty who was guilty should raise an eyebrow. How thorough could a single day of investigation be?
That is a topic for anothe thread but the evidence against OBL was very strong which is why beven many Muslim countries and other nations that opposed the 2nd Gulf War backed the invasion.
QUOTE
Oh yeah, I forgot, the highjackers conveniently left an conspicuous trail right at the end. Korans and flight manuals left in cars.. no, never question the FBI, they are 100% trustworthy.. and we should always take their evidence at face value.
Did it ever occur to you that they wanted that info to be found? OBL had a dilema he wanted to send the US a message but knew the Taliban would be happy about him openly talking credit for such a direct attack on the US. He probably didn't anticipate how many people would be killed
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh yeah, I forgot, the highjackers conveniently left an conspicuous trail right at the end. Korans and flight manuals left in cars.. no, never question the FBI, they are 100% trustworthy.. and we should always take their evidence at face value. |
Did it ever occur to you that they wanted that info to be found? OBL had a dilema he wanted to send the US a message but knew the Taliban would be happy about him openly talking credit for such a direct attack on the US. He probably didn't anticipate how many people would be killed
Okay, I concede. The lack of french structural engineers who've been funded to conducted their own independent study of the WTC collapses PROVES that CD is isn't even a remote possibility. Game over.
You're still evading the issue it's the lack of engineers from anywhere who expressed the slightest doubt that towers collapsed due to the impacts and fires without any help from thermite, explosives deathrays etc
QUOTE
Okay, then Miller should just shut up until the paper is properly peer-reviewed. The horse should not claim that the cart is easy to pull until the cart is in position, right?
Jones paper AFAIK never will be submitted to proper peer review. Since you are a member of st/911 why don't you ask him and Fetzer why they don't submit it for review in a science or engineering journal rather than a Marxist economics one or a book edited by retired profs of theologt ans English lit?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Okay, then Miller should just shut up until the paper is properly peer-reviewed. The horse should not claim that the cart is easy to pull until the cart is in position, right? |
Jones paper AFAIK never will be submitted to proper peer review. Since you are a member of st/911 why don't you ask him and Fetzer why they don't submit it for review in a science or engineering journal rather than a Marxist economics one or a book edited by retired profs of theologt ans English lit?
QUOTE
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.
So the "20 storey hole" is from the 20th floor down to the ground? Thanks, I hadn't known that (as you are not very forthcoming on the evidence used to determine the hole dimensions and location, which I keep asking for). The fact that the hole is low down only helps CD, as the chances of the debris penetrating to the core columns becomes lower than I'd thought.
He never said it went from the 20th floor to the ground. The witnesses cited on the linked page said it was in the middle of the building which means it would have been between floors 13 and 33 more or less.
QUOTE
You are assuming that a large number of politicians are both non-corrupt AND in possession of something incriminating. I doubt the non-corrupt ones are in the right circles to have any dirt.
I'm not the one assuming. You are assuming every person who would have to be involved is corrupt or in fear of their life for this to work. I make no assumptions. I'm working off history and the evidence of whistleblowers in very small groups. Sometimes, as in the case of WMD these whistleblowers are in the very service of government. Even some from other countries have come out as with the Downing Street Memo. No sir, you ave no evidence to assume something this huge would can be kept secret for long. I could see if the people in the towers were considered less than human by the perps but not their own people. If I'm wrong show me an example of a democratic country which mass murdered it's own people and thought they could get away with it.
It doesn't make sense on any level. If corporations pushed for this why did they choose the symbol of corporatism? If government did this why did they choose the pentagon? Why not the sears tower? The logic doesn't make any sense to me at all...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are assuming that a large number of politicians are both non-corrupt AND in possession of something incriminating. I doubt the non-corrupt ones are in the right circles to have any dirt. |
I'm not the one assuming. You are assuming every person who would have to be involved is corrupt or in fear of their life for this to work. I make no assumptions. I'm working off history and the evidence of whistleblowers in very small groups. Sometimes, as in the case of WMD these whistleblowers are in the very service of government. Even some from other countries have come out as with the Downing Street Memo. No sir, you ave no evidence to assume something this huge would can be kept secret for long. I could see if the people in the towers were considered less than human by the perps but not their own people. If I'm wrong show me an example of a democratic country which mass murdered it's own people and thought they could get away with it.
It doesn't make sense on any level. If corporations pushed for this why did they choose the symbol of corporatism? If government did this why did they choose the pentagon? Why not the sears tower? The logic doesn't make any sense to me at all...
Apples and oranges. I am an unknown, someone who could not be a whistleblower or have any incriminating evidence. I'm one of thousands. The risks are miniscule. The risks would be higher if I had potentially damaging information I could release.
People are targeted all the time for less. But I really don't think you or anyone else on this board is a target. I laugh when people on your side think we are "Disinfomation agents.". Heh! As if the government could care what these people think even if they did it.
QUOTE
If there is any reasonable doubt, which there is, it should be examined (Your other examples are not reasonable). Especially when the verdict has led to BILLIONS spent on foreign wars which could have been avoided if a more open investigation was done.
It always comes back to this doesn't it. Sorry but everything you said about the government could be 100% true and the towers could have still fallen by fire. One has NOTHING to do with the other. The Physics of the event doesn't care whos in office and what evil they are up to. You will lose everyone like you lost me inserting politics in something which needs none. Because hitler himself could have flown into the buildings and the towers could have fallen due to the fires. As The Rock would say "IT DOESN'T MATTER!"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If there is any reasonable doubt, which there is, it should be examined (Your other examples are not reasonable). Especially when the verdict has led to BILLIONS spent on foreign wars which could have been avoided if a more open investigation was done. |
It always comes back to this doesn't it. Sorry but everything you said about the government could be 100% true and the towers could have still fallen by fire. One has NOTHING to do with the other. The Physics of the event doesn't care whos in office and what evil they are up to. You will lose everyone like you lost me inserting politics in something which needs none. Because hitler himself could have flown into the buildings and the towers could have fallen due to the fires. As The Rock would say "IT DOESN'T MATTER!"
What intel, pre-9/11 or Iraq?
Pre-war intel...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm
Now that's something to sink your teeth into. Maybe a trail would lead from this to Bush paying bin laden, I don't know. This is somehting I doubt but I don't care anyway. We are here talking about the towers.
QUOTE
Let's not get bogged down in what is or isn't insulting. My style is what it is. There are enough insults flung around in this thread that it should be like water off a ducks back by this stage.
Sorry but I only give the respect I'm shown. If you insult me you're only going to get insulted back. I prefer no insults on both sides but you don't expect me to take calling my post "Amusing" without an equal reply.
Note that I treat newtesticle different than you. His every post is a childish insult and I'm hoping by responding to him in kind he will stop. At the very minimum I'm not going to take his tantrums.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let's not get bogged down in what is or isn't insulting. My style is what it is. There are enough insults flung around in this thread that it should be like water off a ducks back by this stage. |
Sorry but I only give the respect I'm shown. If you insult me you're only going to get insulted back. I prefer no insults on both sides but you don't expect me to take calling my post "Amusing" without an equal reply.
Note that I treat newtesticle different than you. His every post is a childish insult and I'm hoping by responding to him in kind he will stop. At the very minimum I'm not going to take his tantrums.
Do you think Bin Laden is a clever guy?
Why do you think he isn't? He has a degree in civil engineering. Do you have one? He and his men have held back the USSR, do you know anyone who has? Is it because hes arab? Do you think all they can do is drive cabs? I don't understand why you would ask such a question? I think hes a genious. He has people in America blaming someone else for his cimes.
QUOTE
Sorry, but the position of the kink proves nothing. The kink may well match the location that was weakened by the collapse of the penthouse. But if the penthouse collapse was a product of CD, as I believe likely, then it could be used by either side.
I didn't say it "Proves" anything. I said it's an indication. Just another sign post. Like the fireman saying the building was going to fall from fire. Like the transit on the building. All the evidence together points to a collapse by fire. Not any one thing and not conclusive but it is evidence. Something you really don't have. You say the kink means nothing and I say the speed and semetry of the fall means nothing. I will just respectfully disagree and move on.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sorry, but the position of the kink proves nothing. The kink may well match the location that was weakened by the collapse of the penthouse. But if the penthouse collapse was a product of CD, as I believe likely, then it could be used by either side. |
I didn't say it "Proves" anything. I said it's an indication. Just another sign post. Like the fireman saying the building was going to fall from fire. Like the transit on the building. All the evidence together points to a collapse by fire. Not any one thing and not conclusive but it is evidence. Something you really don't have. You say the kink means nothing and I say the speed and semetry of the fall means nothing. I will just respectfully disagree and move on.
Okay then, write to Dr Sunder and tell him to stop doubting the preliminary report.
I have a better idea. Write a paper and peer review it in a civil engineering journal. Tell them you know the building was blown up and the evidence is clear. Heh! Let me know how that turns out.
QUOTE
When you make poorly thought through claims (such as the kink being inconsistent with CD), then I will point them out.
Be respectfull in HOW you point them out. I will take critisism but not insults. Because when you make poorly thought through claims (such as the kink being consistent with CD as the only evidence), then I will point them out as well. I will d respect you as you respect me. Disrespect me and I turn it up a notch higher than you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When you make poorly thought through claims (such as the kink being inconsistent with CD), then I will point them out. |
Be respectfull in HOW you point them out. I will take critisism but not insults. Because when you make poorly thought through claims (such as the kink being consistent with CD as the only evidence), then I will point them out as well. I will d respect you as you respect me. Disrespect me and I turn it up a notch higher than you.
Your statement implies that you are seeing more differences as time goes by. So I asked what differences you are ONLY NOW starting to see. So, if you were following the conversation, you would know I was only talking about the differences you'd noticed RECENTLY, not your base arguements you've always used. So I asked if the kink was all you had in terms of WHAT YOU'VE ONLY NOTICED RECENTLY. Clear now?
I've used the arguments but I never thought it DIDN'T look like CD until recently. When I began this about 400 pages ago I thought it DID just happen to look like a CD. Now I see things diffferently. Now I see the penthouse fall and other videos which I've only recently looked at with a new light. The light of the inner workings of the collapse. I never put the fires in the windows of the 7th floor together with the penthouse. I had herd of ithe 20 story whole but I even told Schneibster on one post that I thought he could be mistaken with the southwest corner. I then found the quote but never read the whole thing. As I see other CD videos, they tend to have explosions visible on all floors through the windows. Most have debris exploding out. I see nothing similar with the WTC 7. I see what would be expected to be coming out during a normal collapse by fire. Lots of dust but not violently out. I guess I've seen it so many times I can see the differences now. Like when the cop said the building didn't look right. The collapse just doesn't look like a CD anymore to me.
QUOTE
The bottom half of the pall of smoke (which is the lighter smoke too), does not seem to originate from WTC7. But I never said the fire was "so small", I said that there's no evidence of INTENSE fires in this video. You don't need intense fires to produce a fair amount of smoke.
We've been down this road before. You don't NEED all floors on fire. You only need the tower damage/hole and a normal office fire on one floor under the penthouse. You STILL haven't said why you need more.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The bottom half of the pall of smoke (which is the lighter smoke too), does not seem to originate from WTC7. But I never said the fire was "so small", I said that there's no evidence of INTENSE fires in this video. You don't need intense fires to produce a fair amount of smoke. |
We've been down this road before. You don't NEED all floors on fire. You only need the tower damage/hole and a normal office fire on one floor under the penthouse. You STILL haven't said why you need more.
You are right that they don't tend to show the pall of smoke. But this smoke is not evidence in itself for fires anywhere near intense enough to significantly affect the building. The images of the north side with hardly any fire visible ARE telling though. Apparantly the fire burnt for several hours. If it was so intense on the south side, why had it not spread to other parts of the building? Was the north side mostly devoid of anything that would burn?
That's just your laymens opinion right? Because you weren't on the scene and you aren't a fire department battalion chief. THEY thought the fire was intence enough. I'm sorry they didn't anticipate people questioning the collapse by fire and didn't take videos of the evidence for their assumption. I'm sure the events at the time were more than enough to forgive their judgement on this.
len - firstly I apologise for not seeing the context of your firemen quotes. I had thought you were posting them in response to the WTC7 discussion, and that they applied to this building not 1 & 2.
They may or may not have been intense enough for collapse intiation. But as RS pointed out, the main contention of CTs is the WAY the buildings collapsed, not that any sort of collapse initiated.
They may or may not have been intense enough for collapse intiation. But as RS pointed out, the main contention of CTs is the WAY the buildings collapsed, not that any sort of collapse initiated.
Numerous engineers have said once the mass of the upper the area of the towers above the impact zones came crashing down the area below could not resist. The were desighed to bear a the static load of a certain mass not dynamic loads full magnitudes greater. You don't believe it? Great, go find an engineer or some evidence to back your theory.
Noone is claiming that the area below COULD resist once collapse initiated. We question the ease and total destruction of the collapse.
Unlike many CT's I try not to selectively quote.
Yes you do Len.
Can you cite an example?
Yes you do Len.
Can you cite an example?
No one has said collapse wasn't a possibilty. It has always been said global, symmetrical collapse at near free-fall speeds was very improbable, nearly impossible with the damage scenario you are trying desparately to convince us of. Quit twisting if you can, but we understand if you can't. You have nothing else.
Classic strawman, I said you guys said the fires were not intense enough you replied something else. Who you trying to fool? The CD proponents insist the fires weren't strong enough. See Brian's post quoting Foxx as an example. You are the one who's twisting.
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
Were are all the civil engineers with papers explaining how WTC7 collapsed? How about just one. It has been over four years.
QUOTE
Your camp has always insisted that the fires were not intense enough to initiate a collapse and cited the smoke as evidence. A highly experienced firefighter thought otherwise.
They may or may not have been intense enough for collapse intiation. But as RS pointed out, the main contention of CTs is the WAY the buildings collapsed, not that any sort of collapse initiated.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your camp has always insisted that the fires were not intense enough to initiate a collapse and cited the smoke as evidence. A highly experienced firefighter thought otherwise. |
They may or may not have been intense enough for collapse intiation. But as RS pointed out, the main contention of CTs is the WAY the buildings collapsed, not that any sort of collapse initiated.
Numerous engineers have said once the mass of the upper the area of the towers above the impact zones came crashing down the area below could not resist. The were desighed to bear a the static load of a certain mass not dynamic loads full magnitudes greater. You don't believe it? Great, go find an engineer or some evidence to back your theory.
Noone is claiming that the area below COULD resist once collapse initiated. We question the ease and total destruction of the collapse.
LenBrazil says -
"There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward."
How about NIST? They failed miserably to explain HOW the towers collapsed, indeed they made no attempt to explain HOW the towers collapsed.
Never in the history of criminal investigation have so many been failed so miserably by so few.
"There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward."
How about NIST? They failed miserably to explain HOW the towers collapsed, indeed they made no attempt to explain HOW the towers collapsed.
Never in the history of criminal investigation have so many been failed so miserably by so few.
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 3 2006, 07:33 PM)
QUOTE
Unlike many CT's I try not to selectively quote.
Yes you do Len.
Can you cite an example?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Unlike many CT's I try not to selectively quote. |
Yes you do Len.
Can you cite an example?
QUOTE
Your camp has always insisted that the fires were not intense enough to initiate a collapse and cited the smoke as evidence. A highly experienced firefighter thought otherwise.
No one has said collapse wasn't a possibilty. It has always been said global, symmetrical collapse at near free-fall speeds was very improbable, nearly impossible with the damage scenario you are trying desparately to convince us of. Quit twisting if you can, but we understand if you can't. You have nothing else.
Classic strawman, I said you guys said the fires were not intense enough you replied something else. Who you trying to fool? The CD proponents insist the fires weren't strong enough. See Brian's post quoting Foxx as an example. You are the one who's twisting.
QUOTE (brian+Apr 3 2006, 07:35 PM)
Where is the evidence to support "anything that enormous"? It simply does not exist.
Foxx has shown time and time again there were no enormous fires. Video evidence shows there were no enormous fires.
Perhaps the confusion comes from the enormity of the problem, ie fighting fires at such levels, and the EXPECTATION that the fires would evolve into - "fires that had burned out of control"
All the available evidence shows the opposite, the fires died down. Or was the fireman looking past the woman at the edge able to see what no one else has seen - the invisible infernos.
Not one aspect of this ludicrous tale hangs together - lets hope that those peddling it do.
The evidence is that he had been a firefighter for 33 years and reached one of the top level positions in one of the world's top fire departments. He and other commanders with similar degrees of experience saw what the fire looked like on sight.
I think they are better judges of what a enormous looks like than Hoffman, foxx or you.
Foxx has shown time and time again there were no enormous fires. Video evidence shows there were no enormous fires.
Perhaps the confusion comes from the enormity of the problem, ie fighting fires at such levels, and the EXPECTATION that the fires would evolve into - "fires that had burned out of control"
All the available evidence shows the opposite, the fires died down. Or was the fireman looking past the woman at the edge able to see what no one else has seen - the invisible infernos.
Not one aspect of this ludicrous tale hangs together - lets hope that those peddling it do.
The evidence is that he had been a firefighter for 33 years and reached one of the top level positions in one of the world's top fire departments. He and other commanders with similar degrees of experience saw what the fire looked like on sight.
I think they are better judges of what a enormous looks like than Hoffman, foxx or you.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 3 2006, 11:54 AM)
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
Were are all the civil engineers with papers explaining how WTC7 collapsed? How about just one. It has been over four years.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 3 2006, 08:14 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Apr 3 2006, 07:35 PM)
Where is the evidence to support "anything that enormous"? It simply does not exist.
Foxx has shown time and time again there were no enormous fires. Video evidence shows there were no enormous fires.
Perhaps the confusion comes from the enormity of the problem, ie fighting fires at such levels, and the EXPECTATION that the fires would evolve into - "fires that had burned out of control"
All the available evidence shows the opposite, the fires died down. Or was the fireman looking past the woman at the edge able to see what no one else has seen - the invisible infernos.
Not one aspect of this ludicrous tale hangs together - lets hope that those peddling it do.
The evidence is that he had been a firefighter for 33 years and reached one of the top level positions in one of the world's top fire departments. He and other commanders with similar degrees of experience saw what the fire looked like on sight.
I think they are better judges of what a enormous looks like than Hoffman, foxx or you.
Len, your appeal to authority is noted.
You do know that does not constitute evidence dont you?
Of course you do but in desperation needs must eh.
If we are relying so much on firefighter observations, why do you and CSpam continually dismiss those in WTC 1+2. You can't have it both ways. Stick to the quotes or stick to the photograpghic evidence. IF you want to avoid being selective, lets throw out the quotes altogether, and stay with the photgraphic evidence. I'm pretty sure you won't agree to this.
I think they are better judges of what a enormous looks like than Hoffman, foxx or you.
I wonder if he would classify this as enormous? I also wonder in what manner he would predict it to collapse? What about you Len, you and CSpam have done alot of speculating here? Any predictions?
And thanks for the compliment again by calling me Schneibster. I'm honored to be thought of so highly. Any moderator can see our IP's are from different parts of the country but please continue to show your desperation by THINKING you're attacking me personally. It shows you have nothing but folded airplanes flying around you're emply skull.
Guest_Schneibster posted this on january 16th.......
from this thread.....http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4259&st=75
and here, from page 5 of the same thread, the 'real' physorg member, shniebster, ....
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4259&st=60
it's the one man circle jerk.
i don't know how ANYONE could be 'honoured' to be confused with such a vile human being.
arthur/scheibster/sensible, commen sense/common sense are either all the same person, or a team of people using a common interface.
want some more psychology, now, shnibs(doreen, lol)?
criminals WANT to get caught and punished, and give themselves away in subtle ways.
Your evidence for me being multiple people is like the evidence you have for CD. DELUSIONAL.
Adoucette kicked your a$$ then I kicked your a$$ then Schneibster kicked your a$$ and you think that makes me adoucette/Schneibster? Soon you'll say I'm your mother because she kicked your a$$ one day. Heh!
That's what happens when you look for it.
I have always said I'm sensible, commen sense, sensable and common sense. Sock puppets don't like you know who they are you tool.
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
Were are all the civil engineers with papers explaining how WTC7 collapsed? How about just one. It has been over four years.
They just finished the towers. That was a big job don't you think?
I'd rather do my own research seeing as the head of NIST doesn't feel that report is in any way definitive.
The point you wish to gloss over is that the NIST report DOES in FACT give a very good overview of the construction of the building. THIS IS important if you wish to discuss the building at all yet you somehow feel that all you need do is take what little bits and pieces that the CT websites tell you. It is patently obvious that this is not enough. You state things like it looks like a notch in the roofline when anyone who has done even a modicum of true research into the structure would already know this.
WHAT else do you not know about the construction of the WTC 7 building that would be relevant? For instance do you know how many and the locations of the deisel generators, and their attendant fuel supplies?
If you can find a substantive difference between how NIST says the building was constructed and any other reputable source then show me.
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
Were are all the civil engineers with papers explaining how WTC7 collapsed? How about just one. It has been over four years.
Your comments on my answers to your questions on the twin towers are overdue.
I've explained that concrete can be completely fractured to fall instantly by a relatively small explosive centralized inside and distributed throughout the center of a wall, steel cannot without huge charges or diffcult to place shaped charges.
I've explained within the scenario of a concrete core I put forth how the 47 interior box columns were cut, and it matches the ground zero evidence of square cut columns.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif
They may or may not have been intense enough for collapse intiation. But as RS pointed out, the main contention of CTs is the WAY the buildings collapsed, not that any sort of collapse initiated.
They may or may not have been intense enough for collapse intiation. But as RS pointed out, the main contention of CTs is the WAY the buildings collapsed, not that any sort of collapse initiated.
Numerous engineers have said once the mass of the upper the area of the towers above the impact zones came crashing down the area below could not resist. The were desighed to bear a the static load of a certain mass not dynamic loads full magnitudes greater. You don't believe it? Great, go find an engineer or some evidence to back your theory.
Noone is claiming that the area below COULD resist once collapse initiated. We question the ease and total destruction of the collapse.
No one??
Foxx has attempted many times to say that the fires were not intense enough to initiate collapse. He does this by showing photos of areas not on fire, or which have had their fires burn down while ignoring the progression of the fires.
Many is the time that the quote from the 78th floor has been used by others to try and show that the fires were small and inconsequential.
Many times we have been told that the steel columns hould have been able to conduct heat away fast enough that they would not heat up and weaken.
Many times we have been told that the top section of both towers should have slid off to the side when it hit the next floor.
MAYBE you believe that the fires could have been hot enough to initiate collapse and maybe you believe that the energy in the initial collapse was easily enough to cause further collapses but your camp is ceratinly not united in that regard.
MAYBE you are saying that there are those who will put forth any senario that claims there was not enough heat or enough energy to do thses things simply in an attempt to push the cause forward and damn the truth of their arguement. Lie first and increase the number of believers and only later tell them that some arguements are not intended to be fully supported. (hey didn't Peter or Paul say something similar? Foxx or steve 52 would know)
Which presupposes a concrete walled core , which no one here believes in and which presupposes explosives installed during construction of the towers which no one here believes in.
,,,,,,, and you wonder why your questions don't get taken seriously??
"Guest_Schneibster" posted this on january 16th.......
from this thread.....another shill 'outs' himself, in the wake of the forgetful "a_ht"
and here, from page 5 of the same thread, the 'real' physorg member, shniebster, ....
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4259&st=60
it's the one man circle jerk.
i don't know how ANYONE could be 'honoured' to be confused with such a vile human being.
Your evidence for me being multiple people is like the evidence you have for CD. DELUSIONAL.
Adoucette kicked your a$$ then I kicked your a$$ then Schneibster kicked your a$$ and you think that makes me adoucette/Schneibster? Soon you'll say I'm your mother because she kicked your a$$ one day. Heh!
That's what happens when you look for it.
I have always said I'm sensible, commen sense, sensable and common sense. Sock puppets don't like you know who they are you tool.
well, then, CSpam, it was highly illogic of you to sign in as Guest_Schniebster, and then make a spelling mistake, and then sign 'Arthur', at the bottom.
my evidence of you being multiple personalities, is that you just admitted it. way to "kick my arse". i love it when you insult me. it's a compliment to be hated by someone so evil.
sock puppets might not want you to know, but you're not even a 'real' sock puppet. you're a whole new phylum. a poisonous poisoner of poison wells. a complete obfuscatory blanket of vitriol and hate. a straw man made from artificial straw. a faux facade.
very distasteful, old man. funny thing is, if you think it's helping your case to continuously pronounce 'victory', you are only fooling yourself.
keep your eyes on the clown car. we seem to be in the midst of a population explosion.
perhaps that's why "dr. doom" has come to recommend we spread the love of ebola on 90% of the population.
ever read the "report from iron mountain"? it's available online for free. very educational, even if it REALLY was "satire".
sorry, other people, here, for this 'off topic' diversion. it's good to know that all of us may be arguing with only one or two guys, though, no? for most of these REAMS of pages.
always room for one more in the clown car, folks. (no puppets, please)
They may or may not have been intense enough for collapse intiation. But as RS pointed out, the main contention of CTs is the WAY the buildings collapsed, not that any sort of collapse initiated.
They may or may not have been intense enough for collapse intiation. But as RS pointed out, the main contention of CTs is the WAY the buildings collapsed, not that any sort of collapse initiated.
Numerous engineers have said once the mass of the upper the area of the towers above the impact zones came crashing down the area below could not resist. The were desighed to bear a the static load of a certain mass not dynamic loads full magnitudes greater. You don't believe it? Great, go find an engineer or some evidence to back your theory.
Noone is claiming that the area below COULD resist once collapse initiated. We question the ease and total destruction of the collapse.
No one??
Foxx has attempted many times to say that the fires were not intense enough to initiate collapse. He does this by showing photos of areas not on fire, or which have had their fires burn down while ignoring the progression of the fires.
Many is the time that the quote from the 78th floor has been used by others to try and show that the fires were small and inconsequential.
Many times we have been told that the steel columns hould have been able to conduct heat away fast enough that they would not heat up and weaken.
Many times we have been told that the top section of both towers should have slid off to the side when it hit the next floor.
MAYBE you believe that the fires could have been hot enough to initiate collapse and maybe you believe that the energy in the initial collapse was easily enough to cause further collapses but your camp is ceratinly not united in that regard.
MAYBE you are saying that there are those who will put forth any senario that claims there was not enough heat or enough energy to do thses things simply in an attempt to push the cause forward and damn the truth of their arguement. Lie first and increase the number of believers and only later tell them that some arguements are not intended to be fully supported. (hey didn't Peter or Paul say something similar? Foxx or steve 52 would know)
So sad, all this earnest debate ........... but about the wrong structure.
That is a concrete wall behind the interior box columns. No fire we've seen will cause that wall to fail. Hence, no local failure, no global, no collapse.
Which it is why it is so important that some argue there was no cast concrete core when Oxford Architectural Digest makes note of the concrete core, amongst many other sources.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg
http://concretecore.741.com/
"Guest_Schneibster" posted this on january 16th.......
from this thread.....another shill 'outs' himself, in the wake of the forgetful "a_ht"
and here, from page 5 of the same thread, the 'real' physorg member, shniebster, ....
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4259&st=60
it's the one man circle jerk.
i don't know how ANYONE could be 'honoured' to be confused with such a vile human being.
Your evidence for me being multiple people is like the evidence you have for CD. DELUSIONAL.
Adoucette kicked your a$$ then I kicked your a$$ then Schneibster kicked your a$$ and you think that makes me adoucette/Schneibster? Soon you'll say I'm your mother because she kicked your a$$ one day. Heh!
That's what happens when you look for it.
I have always said I'm sensible, commen sense, sensable and common sense. Sock puppets don't like you know who they are you tool.
well, then, CSpam, it was highly illogic of you to sign in as Guest_Schniebster, and then make a spelling mistake, and then sign 'Arthur', at the bottom.
my evidence of you being multiple personalities, is that you just admitted it. way to "kick my arse". i love it when you insult me. it's a compliment to be hated by someone so evil.
sock puppets might not want you to know, but you're not even a 'real' sock puppet. you're a whole new phylum. a poisonous poisoner of poison wells. a complete obfuscatory blanket of vitriol and hate. a straw man made from artificial straw. a faux facade.
very distasteful, old man. funny thing is, if you think it's helping your case to continuously pronounce 'victory', you are only fooling yourself.
keep your eyes on the clown car. we seem to be in the midst of a population explosion.
perhaps that's why "dr. doom" has come to recommend we spread the love of ebola on 90% of the population.
ever read the "report from iron mountain"? it's available online for free. very educational, even if it REALLY was "satire".
sorry, other people, here, for this 'off topic' diversion. it's good to know that all of us may be arguing with only one or two guys, though, no? for most of these REAMS of pages.
always room for one more in the clown car, folks. (no puppets, please)
What are you smoking and how do you grow it? I NEVER signed in as Guest_Schniebster moron.
it's the one man circle jerk.
i don't know how ANYONE could be 'honoured' to be confused with such a vile human being.
Your evidence for me being multiple people is like the evidence you have for CD. DELUSIONAL.
Adoucette kicked your a$$ then I kicked your a$$ then Schneibster kicked your a$$ and you think that makes me adoucette/Schneibster? Soon you'll say I'm your mother because she kicked your a$$ one day. Heh!
That's what happens when you look for it.
I have always said I'm sensible, commen sense, sensable and common sense. Sock puppets don't like you know who they are you tool.
well, then, CSpam, it was highly illogic of you to sign in as Guest_Schniebster, and then make a spelling mistake, and then sign 'Arthur', at the bottom.
my evidence of you being multiple personalities, is that you just admitted it. way to "kick my arse". i love it when you insult me. it's a compliment to be hated by someone so evil.
sock puppets might not want you to know, but you're not even a 'real' sock puppet. you're a whole new phylum. a poisonous poisoner of poison wells. a complete obfuscatory blanket of vitriol and hate. a straw man made from artificial straw. a faux facade.
very distasteful, old man. funny thing is, if you think it's helping your case to continuously pronounce 'victory', you are only fooling yourself.
keep your eyes on the clown car. we seem to be in the midst of a population explosion.
perhaps that's why "dr. doom" has come to recommend we spread the love of ebola on 90% of the population.
ever read the "report from iron mountain"? it's available online for free. very educational, even if it REALLY was "satire".
sorry, other people, here, for this 'off topic' diversion. it's good to know that all of us may be arguing with only one or two guys, though, no? for most of these REAMS of pages.
always room for one more in the clown car, folks. (no puppets, please)
What are you smoking and how do you grow it? I NEVER signed in as Guest_Schniebster moron.
sorry, other people, here, for this 'off topic' diversion.
Why stop now? That's all you ever do.
Which presupposes a concrete walled core , which no one here believes in and which presupposes explosives installed during construction of the towers which no one here believes in.
,,,,,,, and you wonder why your questions don't get taken seriously??
How can you be taken seriously when you have not explained free fall, the most outrageous event of the day. Here I explain free fall and pulverization both. Free fall must be explained by the truth.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Then, .......... you cannot admit that only concrete could have this appearance.
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
Were are all the civil engineers with papers explaining how WTC7 collapsed? How about just one. It has been over four years.
They just finished the towers. That was a big job don't you think?
That was a separate event. It has been over 4 years and no so called experts have written a papers on WTC7. The fact that WTC7 collapsed should be of more concern because it is the first Steel framed building to fall from fire alone ( not hit by a plane). This should be easy if Disproportionate Global Collapse is possible.
Which presupposes a concrete walled core , which no one here believes in and which presupposes explosives installed during construction of the towers which no one here believes in.
,,,,,,, and you wonder why your questions don't get taken seriously??
It is not a matter of belief. There are facts, if one cannot recognize them, they cannot work with them.
And people here generally are not. They are working with what they know, or think they know, or what they think is relevant.
When the largest, most profound event is IGNORED, free fall, how can any of it be taken seriously?
Logically, the investigative analysis begins with the final effects and works backwards with the process of elimination. Any presumption made that prohibits the final effects is something that did not happen.
In the presence of the fact that the mayor of NY took the WTC documents,
http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html
including the plans, and will not return them. It is logical to assume that something in plans will reveal that the collapse is not possible. That is YOUR responsibility in this situation, if you want to be reasonable and credible, because I KNOW the core was cast concrete.
I've shown something that really looks like rebar to you, and I know 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS is what the image shows. The same image should reveal the "massive core columns" that the official structure presents, but no steel columns are seen in the core area.
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
Were are all the civil engineers with papers explaining how WTC7 collapsed? How about just one. It has been over four years.
They just finished the towers. That was a big job don't you think?
That was a separate event. It has been over 4 years and no so called experts have written a papers on WTC7. The fact that WTC7 collapsed should be of more concern because it is the first Steel framed building to fall from fire alone ( not hit by a plane). This should be easy if Disproportionate Global Collapse is possible.
That was a seperate event. That's my point. All the resouces would go into just those two massive buildings. They had hunderds working on it. Do you have some evidence they held it up on purpose or because they can't figure out? I heard they had a public draft of the report for comment. It's not like they didn't do anything. It's just late.
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
Were are all the civil engineers with papers explaining how WTC7 collapsed? How about just one. It has been over four years.
They just finished the towers. That was a big job don't you think?
That was a separate event. It has been over 4 years and no so called experts have written a papers on WTC7. The fact that WTC7 collapsed should be of more concern because it is the first Steel framed building to fall from fire alone ( not hit by a plane). This should be easy if Disproportionate Global Collapse is possible.
That was a seperate event. That's my point. All the resouces would go into just those two massive buildings. They had hunderds working on it. Do you have some evidence they held it up on purpose or because they can't figure out? I heard they had a public draft of the report for comment. It's not like they didn't do anything. It's just late.
I am not talking about NIST. NIST can continue to postpone publication forever. Lenbrazil’s argument is experts are only qualified to question the collapse of a building. Why haven’t engineers come forward supporting Disproportionate Global Collapse without the use of explosives? Papers were written before FEMA or NIST published the reports on WTC 1 and 2. WTC7 is much more important if Disproportionate Global Collapse due to fire is possible. The government, engineers, and architects should all be interested because of safety concerns (Even if the physical evidence was destroyed in Two weeks).
Umm.. the media can stop it by not reporting on it.
But I gave you some. That you don't believe them is your business. I don't believe a word you say either. But here are the ones I gave you just incase...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=9&c=y
I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
DEGREES
BES Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 1969
MS Stanford University Stanford, California 1970
Engineer Stanford University Stanford, California 1972
Ph.D. Stanford University Stanford, California 1975
Post PhD Diploma International Institute for Hydrologists Delft, The Netherlands 1983
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
1973-74 Auburn University Auburn, Alabama Instructor of Civil Engineering
1974-78 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
1978-87 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1979 Northeastern University Boston, Mass. Visiting Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1987-present Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Professor of Civil Engineering
SERVICE
Department Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2000 - present
Graduate Coordinator, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1985 - 2000
Member, Exec. Committee, Utah Section, American Water Res. Assoc., 1988 - present
Member, Orem City Metropolitan Water Board, 1980 - 1990
Member, Provo City Metropolitan Water Board, 2005 - Present
ORGANIZATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Water Resources Association; Past President twice, Utah Section
American Society for Engineering Education
Tau Beta Pi, Past President, Utah Beta Section
Phi Kappa Phi and Sigma Xi
HONORS AND AWARDS
Karl G. Maeser Distinguished Teaching Award from Brigham Young University, 1988
BYU Blue Key Professor of the Year/Recognition of Excellence Award, 1993
Outstanding College Teacher Award, College of Engineering, 1988
Teacher of the Year Award, Civil Engineering Department, 1986, 1988-89, 1991-94, 1997-98, 2002, and 2004
Utah Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Engineers Joint Council, 1993
Utah Civil Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of ASCE, 1992
Utah Water Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of AWRA, 2001
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php...miller/vita.php
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2
"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display...ss.cfm?uid=1874
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D.
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html
Metamars, your hand waving is entering humming bird speed. Heh!
But I gave you some. That you don't believe them is your business. I don't believe a word you say either. But here are the ones I gave you just incase...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=9&c=y
I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
DEGREES
BES Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 1969
MS Stanford University Stanford, California 1970
Engineer Stanford University Stanford, California 1972
Ph.D. Stanford University Stanford, California 1975
Post PhD Diploma International Institute for Hydrologists Delft, The Netherlands 1983
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
1973-74 Auburn University Auburn, Alabama Instructor of Civil Engineering
1974-78 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
1978-87 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1979 Northeastern University Boston, Mass. Visiting Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1987-present Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Professor of Civil Engineering
SERVICE
Department Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2000 - present
Graduate Coordinator, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1985 - 2000
Member, Exec. Committee, Utah Section, American Water Res. Assoc., 1988 - present
Member, Orem City Metropolitan Water Board, 1980 - 1990
Member, Provo City Metropolitan Water Board, 2005 - Present
ORGANIZATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Water Resources Association; Past President twice, Utah Section
American Society for Engineering Education
Tau Beta Pi, Past President, Utah Beta Section
Phi Kappa Phi and Sigma Xi
HONORS AND AWARDS
Karl G. Maeser Distinguished Teaching Award from Brigham Young University, 1988
BYU Blue Key Professor of the Year/Recognition of Excellence Award, 1993
Outstanding College Teacher Award, College of Engineering, 1988
Teacher of the Year Award, Civil Engineering Department, 1986, 1988-89, 1991-94, 1997-98, 2002, and 2004
Utah Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Engineers Joint Council, 1993
Utah Civil Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of ASCE, 1992
Utah Water Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of AWRA, 2001
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php...miller/vita.php
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2
"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display...ss.cfm?uid=1874
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D.
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html
Metamars, your hand waving is entering humming bird speed. Heh!
And I didn't SAY that any building fell faster than free fall. You're really losing it, aren't you?
You haven't proved that. No matter how many times you wave your hands and stomp your feet you didn't. You haven't brought ANY conclusive evidence. The evidence you think you're bringing is laughable. "Look at this grainy internet video taken from a quarter mile away! It prove! it came down in less than free fall sspeed!" HEHEHE. Wave away...
Yeah, let me know how that works out... The point is you people have had 4 years to do so and haven't. The idea that this couldn't be done by someone else is also absurd. Make excuses much, do you?
Yeah, let me know how that works out... The point is you people have had 4 years to do so and haven't. The idea that this couldn't be done by someone else is also absurd. Make excuses much, do you?
Therefore, an appropriate analogy with your historian/holocaust example would be between how many Ph.D. civil engineers accepted the "reality" of Newton's laws of motion.
Simply put as many as didn't challenge it when he did it. Take about staw men. GEEZ This from someone obviously dancing on the yellow brick road. Click your heals twice will ya! "There's no place like reality, there's no place like reality..."
Professor Jones' paper is clearly at odds with the NIST'ian hand waving, so if you commit the logical fallacy of thinking that disavowing Professor Jones' paper, as in the following:
I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims"
is equivalent to
1) supporting the NIST'ian handwaving re "inevitable global collapse" and
2) further, even implicity supporting not just the NIST'ian handwaving re "inevitable global collapse" which is a qualitative notion, but also the quantitative notion of "inevitable global collapse" which takes just a few seconds more than free fall time in the case of WTC1&2, and about .5 seconds more in the case of WTC7
, your response might make some sense.
Your response doesn't make sense because they're not equivalent, no matter how much you might wish them to be.
I have to admit that I'm a little sympathetic to your muddled thinking, in this particular case, because in this particular case, a lot of people who are far more polite than you could ever be, and don't have an axe to grind, might have made the same mistake.
I don't have time to explain to you the meaning of the word "intuition", nor do I have the time or inclination to explain to you the difference between the words "quantitative" and "qualitative". EVen so, I would hope that you can figure these out, on your own, if you don't already know.
Need I add that the quote above is rather broad and non-specific, and thus while I can see why you would be happy to interpret their statement as "Jones is wrong about absolutely everything" (which would still be unclear - was Jones wrong about the existence of WTC7? the fact that it collapsed??, the fact that red hot metal was found 6 weeks after 9/11???), you are not justified in doing so?
Even if you surmount these conceptual hurdles, though, I'm afraid I fully expect you to fail to grasp the logical fallacy of assuming that engineers who disavow Jones' paper is the same thing as 1) and 2), above.
I welcome you to prove me wrong (regarding your ability to clarify your thinking), but I'm not holding my breath.
I think if you actually did do a survey, of civil/construction engineers who were familiar with the NIST report, as well as Jones' paper + other CD evidence, you would still find "lots" who would side with the NIST'ian handwaving in the case of WTC 1 & 2, just as you would find "lots" who would not side with NIST, and agree with Professor Jones that CD is a far better explanation (even if they pooh-pooh*** some of his arguments).*
In the case of WTC7, I think you'd find an overwhelming majority of civil/construction engineers who think the NIST'ian handwaving** is nonsense, even if they agreed that NIST's quantitative work on local collapses in WTC 1 & 2 was quite credible.
* Conceivably, a majority would prefer to make a non-commital type of response, which would not back either NIST or CD.
** I'm quite sure that NIST makes many explicit references to "global collapse" being "inevitable" when referring to WTC 1 & 2. I'm not so sure wrt WTC 7, but I'm pretty sure that both popes and non-popes agree that NIST's position is this. Consequently, I impute such a characterization to NIST, even if they are not so explicit in this case. Besides, they claim that there is no evidence for CD, which is a lie.
*** At least later versions of Jones' paper refer to Professor Judi Wood's web page, but I don't think this paper has any chance of convincing civil engineers. This does not mean that analyzing the implications of "pancaking" should not be done, but if it's done at all, it needs to be done in a way that can pass muster with civil engineers. Frankly, I would not have referred to Wood's web page, if I had been Jones.
Well, Brian anyone who is paying attention sees that I catch SChneib... errr - I mean "CSpam" continually with his pants down, (which explains his hatred for me).
Of course - not that ONLY I can see the 'emperor/pope' is wearing no clothes; and he is being continually tripped up by many 'clowns' who recognize those with murderous and lying traits.
You nailed him good with...
"His contempt for humanity is as blatant as is it for the truth."
Just like the "Schneibster-ooney" this new incarnation of this dark character, is...
- vile, arrogant, insulting, pope-ish, and ignorant...
- Constantly refers to the 'True Conspiracy' (which he claims we are allegedly interfering with), whilst proposing nonsensical physics - which these 'black-heart' spammers seek to promote)...
- Constantly makes allegations that 'tin-hats' are ROVE Supporters... (a double reverse psychological ploy - meant to associate CT'ers as Bush political supporters)
- A Faux democrat (as shown by his posting of the Capitol Hill Blue {'Doug Thompson'} article, then quickly abandoning it when the responses went against his use of the article
- Unending fixations on 'anal' things - gives me the opinion he is more interested in buggary than normal sexual relations... (probably NOT absolutely true - I think more accurately 'he' uses this ploy to sicken and disgust others from participating in the thread)
- His initial 'introduction' though conversations with himself (the 'old' Schneiby-Dooby-Doo) and his constant use of sock-puppets.
The psychological identity traits go on and on which shows him to be a clone of "The Schneibster".
Although the above will tread upon the sensitivites of those intelligent posters such as metamars (who has often voiced his own opinion that we can not know for certain that one poster,or another) is a paid shill...
My opinion is that we DO know for a fact that the 'black-hearts' patrol ALL 9/11 threads, and some like "CHUCKLES" aka "CSpam" aka "The Schneibster" (along with all his other "publicly registered puppets", as well as the "Unregistered Guests") who support these black-hearts are in fact outright shills sent out to cover for the murderers.
I have been 'at this' long enough to pick-up on the psychological traits of these blatant shills. These 9/11 threads are evidence (in themselves) that "spooks" are propagating a violent (at least in the verbal sense)info-war assault against those who are innocently seeking truth.
'They' are actually doing a slick job of spamming... [I'm way back (about 5 or 6 pages), so it may take a while to catch up to the current postings]... but I thought I would post this now and catch up to the spitting and insults from CIA/Schneib/CSpam later... (though I must admit I'm not really reading the spammer posts - just scrolling past for the most part unless someone else quotes his nonsense).
Keep up the good work, brian. Cheers from currently independant Canada.
Foxx has shown time and time again there were no enormous fires. Video evidence shows there were no enormous fires.
Perhaps the confusion comes from the enormity of the problem, ie fighting fires at such levels, and the EXPECTATION that the fires would evolve into - "fires that had burned out of control"
All the available evidence shows the opposite, the fires died down. Or was the fireman looking past the woman at the edge able to see what no one else has seen - the invisible infernos.
Not one aspect of this ludicrous tale hangs together - lets hope that those peddling it do.
The evidence is that he had been a firefighter for 33 years and reached one of the top level positions in one of the world's top fire departments. He and other commanders with similar degrees of experience saw what the fire looked like on sight.
I think they are better judges of what a enormous looks like than Hoffman, foxx or you.
Len, your appeal to authority is noted.
You do know that does not constitute evidence dont you?
Of course you do but in desperation needs must eh.
QUOTE
The evidence is that he had been a firefighter for 33 years and reached one of the top level positions in one of the world's top fire departments. He and other commanders with similar degrees of experience saw what the fire looked like on sight.
I think they are better judges of what a enormous looks like than Hoffman, foxx or you.
I think they are better judges of what a enormous looks like than Hoffman, foxx or you.
If we are relying so much on firefighter observations, why do you and CSpam continually dismiss those in WTC 1+2. You can't have it both ways. Stick to the quotes or stick to the photograpghic evidence. IF you want to avoid being selective, lets throw out the quotes altogether, and stay with the photgraphic evidence. I'm pretty sure you won't agree to this.
YEAH CHUCKLES !!!!! Great tactic of going "all in" with out even looking at the cards. Scares the meek.
THIS PUPPET SHOW RULES!!
THIS PUPPET SHOW RULES!!
QUOTE
I think they are better judges of what a enormous looks like than Hoffman, foxx or you.
I wonder if he would classify this as enormous? I also wonder in what manner he would predict it to collapse? What about you Len, you and CSpam have done alot of speculating here? Any predictions?
QUOTE (newton+Apr 3 2006, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 01:05 PM)
And thanks for the compliment again by calling me Schneibster. I'm honored to be thought of so highly. Any moderator can see our IP's are from different parts of the country but please continue to show your desperation by THINKING you're attacking me personally. It shows you have nothing but folded airplanes flying around you're emply skull.
Guest_Schneibster posted this on january 16th.......
from this thread.....http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4259&st=75
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
he IS ignoring any data that doesn't support the official lie, though. squibs. molten metal. the fact that most of the tower was undamaged, and yet somehow offered ALMOST no resistance to collapse, allowing the mass to ACCELERATE as it 'picked up momentum(without losing any momentum due to the resistance of the INCREASINGLY STRONGER base of the tower. he also like to ignore that the core was standing with no more 'plungers' or pushing and pulling 'trusses', and yet still managed to collapse on it self, losing the angular momentum that it had as it STARTED to tip, and then fell STRAIGHT DOWN in what AMY have been freefall, and was MOST certainly NEARLY FREEFALL. Moron....I only ignore illogic conspiracy nuts like you. Arthur |
and here, from page 5 of the same thread, the 'real' physorg member, shniebster, ....
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4259&st=60
QUOTE
Great minds think alike, Arthur.
it's the one man circle jerk.
i don't know how ANYONE could be 'honoured' to be confused with such a vile human being.
arthur/scheibster/sensible, commen sense/common sense are either all the same person, or a team of people using a common interface.
want some more psychology, now, shnibs(doreen, lol)?
criminals WANT to get caught and punished, and give themselves away in subtle ways.
Your evidence for me being multiple people is like the evidence you have for CD. DELUSIONAL.
Adoucette kicked your a$$ then I kicked your a$$ then Schneibster kicked your a$$ and you think that makes me adoucette/Schneibster? Soon you'll say I'm your mother because she kicked your a$$ one day. Heh!
That's what happens when you look for it.
I have always said I'm sensible, commen sense, sensable and common sense. Sock puppets don't like you know who they are you tool.
QUOTE (brian+Apr 3 2006, 03:23 PM)
Len, your appeal to authority is noted.
You do know that does not constitute evidence dont you?
Of course you do but in desperation needs must eh.
Your LACK of authority is also noted.
You do know that does not constitute evidence dont you?
Of course you do but in desperation needs must eh.
Your LACK of authority is also noted.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 3 2006, 03:19 PM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 3 2006, 11:54 AM)
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
Were are all the civil engineers with papers explaining how WTC7 collapsed? How about just one. It has been over four years.
They just finished the towers. That was a big job don't you think?
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 3 2006, 06:29 PM)
QUOTE
Yes!!!! There is a notch in the roofline. As a matter of fact there is one on each side of the south face. This is a detail you would know had you bothered to read the NIST report on WTC 7
I'd rather do my own research seeing as the head of NIST doesn't feel that report is in any way definitive.
The point you wish to gloss over is that the NIST report DOES in FACT give a very good overview of the construction of the building. THIS IS important if you wish to discuss the building at all yet you somehow feel that all you need do is take what little bits and pieces that the CT websites tell you. It is patently obvious that this is not enough. You state things like it looks like a notch in the roofline when anyone who has done even a modicum of true research into the structure would already know this.
WHAT else do you not know about the construction of the WTC 7 building that would be relevant? For instance do you know how many and the locations of the deisel generators, and their attendant fuel supplies?
If you can find a substantive difference between how NIST says the building was constructed and any other reputable source then show me.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 3 2006, 08:19 PM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 3 2006, 11:54 AM)
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
Were are all the civil engineers with papers explaining how WTC7 collapsed? How about just one. It has been over four years.
Your comments on my answers to your questions on the twin towers are overdue.
I've explained that concrete can be completely fractured to fall instantly by a relatively small explosive centralized inside and distributed throughout the center of a wall, steel cannot without huge charges or diffcult to place shaped charges.
I've explained within the scenario of a concrete core I put forth how the 47 interior box columns were cut, and it matches the ground zero evidence of square cut columns.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 3 2006, 08:00 PM)
QUOTE
Your camp has always insisted that the fires were not intense enough to initiate a collapse and cited the smoke as evidence. A highly experienced firefighter thought otherwise.
They may or may not have been intense enough for collapse intiation. But as RS pointed out, the main contention of CTs is the WAY the buildings collapsed, not that any sort of collapse initiated.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your camp has always insisted that the fires were not intense enough to initiate a collapse and cited the smoke as evidence. A highly experienced firefighter thought otherwise. |
They may or may not have been intense enough for collapse intiation. But as RS pointed out, the main contention of CTs is the WAY the buildings collapsed, not that any sort of collapse initiated.
Numerous engineers have said once the mass of the upper the area of the towers above the impact zones came crashing down the area below could not resist. The were desighed to bear a the static load of a certain mass not dynamic loads full magnitudes greater. You don't believe it? Great, go find an engineer or some evidence to back your theory.
Noone is claiming that the area below COULD resist once collapse initiated. We question the ease and total destruction of the collapse.
No one??
Foxx has attempted many times to say that the fires were not intense enough to initiate collapse. He does this by showing photos of areas not on fire, or which have had their fires burn down while ignoring the progression of the fires.
Many is the time that the quote from the 78th floor has been used by others to try and show that the fires were small and inconsequential.
Many times we have been told that the steel columns hould have been able to conduct heat away fast enough that they would not heat up and weaken.
Many times we have been told that the top section of both towers should have slid off to the side when it hit the next floor.
MAYBE you believe that the fires could have been hot enough to initiate collapse and maybe you believe that the energy in the initial collapse was easily enough to cause further collapses but your camp is ceratinly not united in that regard.
MAYBE you are saying that there are those who will put forth any senario that claims there was not enough heat or enough energy to do thses things simply in an attempt to push the cause forward and damn the truth of their arguement. Lie first and increase the number of believers and only later tell them that some arguements are not intended to be fully supported. (hey didn't Peter or Paul say something similar? Foxx or steve 52 would know)
QUOTE
Christophera writes:
I've explained that concrete can be completely fractured to fall instantly by a relatively small explosive centralized inside and distributed throughout the center of a wall, steel cannot without huge charges or diffcult to place shaped charges.
I've explained that concrete can be completely fractured to fall instantly by a relatively small explosive centralized inside and distributed throughout the center of a wall, steel cannot without huge charges or diffcult to place shaped charges.
Which presupposes a concrete walled core , which no one here believes in and which presupposes explosives installed during construction of the towers which no one here believes in.
,,,,,,, and you wonder why your questions don't get taken seriously??
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 09:59 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Apr 3 2006, 02:28 PM)
"Guest_Schneibster" posted this on january 16th.......
from this thread.....another shill 'outs' himself, in the wake of the forgetful "a_ht"
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
he IS ignoring any data that doesn't support the official lie, though. squibs. molten metal. the fact that most of the tower was undamaged, and yet somehow offered ALMOST no resistance to collapse, allowing the mass to ACCELERATE as it 'picked up momentum(without losing any momentum due to the resistance of the INCREASINGLY STRONGER base of the tower. he also like to ignore that the core was standing with no more 'plungers' or pushing and pulling 'trusses', and yet still managed to collapse on it self, losing the angular momentum that it had as it STARTED to tip, and then fell STRAIGHT DOWN in what AMY have been freefall, and was MOST certainly NEARLY FREEFALL. Moron....I only ignore illogic conspiracy nuts like you. Arthur |
and here, from page 5 of the same thread, the 'real' physorg member, shniebster, ....
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4259&st=60
QUOTE
Great minds think alike, Arthur.
it's the one man circle jerk.
i don't know how ANYONE could be 'honoured' to be confused with such a vile human being.
Your evidence for me being multiple people is like the evidence you have for CD. DELUSIONAL.
Adoucette kicked your a$$ then I kicked your a$$ then Schneibster kicked your a$$ and you think that makes me adoucette/Schneibster? Soon you'll say I'm your mother because she kicked your a$$ one day. Heh!
That's what happens when you look for it.
I have always said I'm sensible, commen sense, sensable and common sense. Sock puppets don't like you know who they are you tool.
well, then, CSpam, it was highly illogic of you to sign in as Guest_Schniebster, and then make a spelling mistake, and then sign 'Arthur', at the bottom.
my evidence of you being multiple personalities, is that you just admitted it. way to "kick my arse". i love it when you insult me. it's a compliment to be hated by someone so evil.
sock puppets might not want you to know, but you're not even a 'real' sock puppet. you're a whole new phylum. a poisonous poisoner of poison wells. a complete obfuscatory blanket of vitriol and hate. a straw man made from artificial straw. a faux facade.
very distasteful, old man. funny thing is, if you think it's helping your case to continuously pronounce 'victory', you are only fooling yourself.
keep your eyes on the clown car. we seem to be in the midst of a population explosion.
perhaps that's why "dr. doom" has come to recommend we spread the love of ebola on 90% of the population.
ever read the "report from iron mountain"? it's available online for free. very educational, even if it REALLY was "satire".
sorry, other people, here, for this 'off topic' diversion. it's good to know that all of us may be arguing with only one or two guys, though, no? for most of these REAMS of pages.
always room for one more in the clown car, folks. (no puppets, please)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 3 2006, 10:38 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 3 2006, 08:00 PM)
QUOTE
Your camp has always insisted that the fires were not intense enough to initiate a collapse and cited the smoke as evidence. A highly experienced firefighter thought otherwise.
They may or may not have been intense enough for collapse intiation. But as RS pointed out, the main contention of CTs is the WAY the buildings collapsed, not that any sort of collapse initiated.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your camp has always insisted that the fires were not intense enough to initiate a collapse and cited the smoke as evidence. A highly experienced firefighter thought otherwise. |
They may or may not have been intense enough for collapse intiation. But as RS pointed out, the main contention of CTs is the WAY the buildings collapsed, not that any sort of collapse initiated.
Numerous engineers have said once the mass of the upper the area of the towers above the impact zones came crashing down the area below could not resist. The were desighed to bear a the static load of a certain mass not dynamic loads full magnitudes greater. You don't believe it? Great, go find an engineer or some evidence to back your theory.
Noone is claiming that the area below COULD resist once collapse initiated. We question the ease and total destruction of the collapse.
No one??
Foxx has attempted many times to say that the fires were not intense enough to initiate collapse. He does this by showing photos of areas not on fire, or which have had their fires burn down while ignoring the progression of the fires.
Many is the time that the quote from the 78th floor has been used by others to try and show that the fires were small and inconsequential.
Many times we have been told that the steel columns hould have been able to conduct heat away fast enough that they would not heat up and weaken.
Many times we have been told that the top section of both towers should have slid off to the side when it hit the next floor.
MAYBE you believe that the fires could have been hot enough to initiate collapse and maybe you believe that the energy in the initial collapse was easily enough to cause further collapses but your camp is ceratinly not united in that regard.
MAYBE you are saying that there are those who will put forth any senario that claims there was not enough heat or enough energy to do thses things simply in an attempt to push the cause forward and damn the truth of their arguement. Lie first and increase the number of believers and only later tell them that some arguements are not intended to be fully supported. (hey didn't Peter or Paul say something similar? Foxx or steve 52 would know)
So sad, all this earnest debate ........... but about the wrong structure.
That is a concrete wall behind the interior box columns. No fire we've seen will cause that wall to fail. Hence, no local failure, no global, no collapse.
Which it is why it is so important that some argue there was no cast concrete core when Oxford Architectural Digest makes note of the concrete core, amongst many other sources.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg
http://concretecore.741.com/
QUOTE (newton+Apr 3 2006, 05:57 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 09:59 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Apr 3 2006, 02:28 PM)
"Guest_Schneibster" posted this on january 16th.......
from this thread.....another shill 'outs' himself, in the wake of the forgetful "a_ht"
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
he IS ignoring any data that doesn't support the official lie, though. squibs. molten metal. the fact that most of the tower was undamaged, and yet somehow offered ALMOST no resistance to collapse, allowing the mass to ACCELERATE as it 'picked up momentum(without losing any momentum due to the resistance of the INCREASINGLY STRONGER base of the tower. he also like to ignore that the core was standing with no more 'plungers' or pushing and pulling 'trusses', and yet still managed to collapse on it self, losing the angular momentum that it had as it STARTED to tip, and then fell STRAIGHT DOWN in what AMY have been freefall, and was MOST certainly NEARLY FREEFALL. Moron....I only ignore illogic conspiracy nuts like you. Arthur |
and here, from page 5 of the same thread, the 'real' physorg member, shniebster, ....
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4259&st=60
QUOTE
Great minds think alike, Arthur.
it's the one man circle jerk.
i don't know how ANYONE could be 'honoured' to be confused with such a vile human being.
Your evidence for me being multiple people is like the evidence you have for CD. DELUSIONAL.
Adoucette kicked your a$$ then I kicked your a$$ then Schneibster kicked your a$$ and you think that makes me adoucette/Schneibster? Soon you'll say I'm your mother because she kicked your a$$ one day. Heh!
That's what happens when you look for it.
I have always said I'm sensible, commen sense, sensable and common sense. Sock puppets don't like you know who they are you tool.
well, then, CSpam, it was highly illogic of you to sign in as Guest_Schniebster, and then make a spelling mistake, and then sign 'Arthur', at the bottom.
my evidence of you being multiple personalities, is that you just admitted it. way to "kick my arse". i love it when you insult me. it's a compliment to be hated by someone so evil.
sock puppets might not want you to know, but you're not even a 'real' sock puppet. you're a whole new phylum. a poisonous poisoner of poison wells. a complete obfuscatory blanket of vitriol and hate. a straw man made from artificial straw. a faux facade.
very distasteful, old man. funny thing is, if you think it's helping your case to continuously pronounce 'victory', you are only fooling yourself.
keep your eyes on the clown car. we seem to be in the midst of a population explosion.
perhaps that's why "dr. doom" has come to recommend we spread the love of ebola on 90% of the population.
ever read the "report from iron mountain"? it's available online for free. very educational, even if it REALLY was "satire".
sorry, other people, here, for this 'off topic' diversion. it's good to know that all of us may be arguing with only one or two guys, though, no? for most of these REAMS of pages.
always room for one more in the clown car, folks. (no puppets, please)
What are you smoking and how do you grow it? I NEVER signed in as Guest_Schniebster moron.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Great minds think alike, Arthur. |
it's the one man circle jerk.
i don't know how ANYONE could be 'honoured' to be confused with such a vile human being.
Your evidence for me being multiple people is like the evidence you have for CD. DELUSIONAL.
Adoucette kicked your a$$ then I kicked your a$$ then Schneibster kicked your a$$ and you think that makes me adoucette/Schneibster? Soon you'll say I'm your mother because she kicked your a$$ one day. Heh!
That's what happens when you look for it.
I have always said I'm sensible, commen sense, sensable and common sense. Sock puppets don't like you know who they are you tool.
well, then, CSpam, it was highly illogic of you to sign in as Guest_Schniebster, and then make a spelling mistake, and then sign 'Arthur', at the bottom.
my evidence of you being multiple personalities, is that you just admitted it. way to "kick my arse". i love it when you insult me. it's a compliment to be hated by someone so evil.
sock puppets might not want you to know, but you're not even a 'real' sock puppet. you're a whole new phylum. a poisonous poisoner of poison wells. a complete obfuscatory blanket of vitriol and hate. a straw man made from artificial straw. a faux facade.
very distasteful, old man. funny thing is, if you think it's helping your case to continuously pronounce 'victory', you are only fooling yourself.
keep your eyes on the clown car. we seem to be in the midst of a population explosion.
perhaps that's why "dr. doom" has come to recommend we spread the love of ebola on 90% of the population.
ever read the "report from iron mountain"? it's available online for free. very educational, even if it REALLY was "satire".
sorry, other people, here, for this 'off topic' diversion. it's good to know that all of us may be arguing with only one or two guys, though, no? for most of these REAMS of pages.
always room for one more in the clown car, folks. (no puppets, please)
What are you smoking and how do you grow it? I NEVER signed in as Guest_Schniebster moron.
sorry, other people, here, for this 'off topic' diversion.
Why stop now? That's all you ever do.
Common Sense --- Thanks for trying, but the administrator doesn't understand that I can 'log-in' to become an 'Active Member' as is listed in the home page of this site. When I am 'logged-in' and an 'Active Member' I cannot post replies. I get a message saying I don't have 'permission'.
This might be easier to resolve via a more active e-mail exchange. Try this
and scroll to the bottom of the page to read my OCR e-mail address. I am not worried about spam since this entire group of addresses is protected via Postini, for about $3/month each. Postini has a facility to allow me to block individual addresses if necessary. Thanks.
newtonnjd --- I don't think we know anymore about the damage to the south face of WTC 7 than it was 20 stories tall and on the south side. NIST seems to place the damage in the middle. I would put it further to the east myself, just based on the fact that the fire seems to be most intense there and that the east penthouse was the first to collapse.
I personally don't see how the 'kink' in WTC 7 as the collapse progressed supports either the A hypothesis (fires+damage were enough) or the D hypothesis (demolition charges were also used). In either case, imho, we are seeing the result of the beams connecting the exterior to the interior posts becoming unfastened, so that the curtain wall and exterior posts and beams have no interior support.
For everybody, please remember this site is devoted to science, physics and chemistry, both in theory and applied as in engineering and technology. I don't really care what your motivations or beliefs are, irrespective of whether you are leaning to the A side or the D side. I do care about doing careful investigation. Since the event of WTC 7 collapse is not a repeatable experiment, one needs to take into account not only the visuals but also the testimony of the firemen there. The same holds for WTC 1, 2 & 6.
I do appreciate it when people bring fresh, related evidence or ideas to the debate. I don't find helpful the reiterating of old points, but I do find summaries useful once in a while. With regard to WTC 7 Common Sense has posted one (twice) and I have posted another (once). Evidently neither was extensive enough for some here. Fine by me. I'm willing to go on until everyone is sufficiently satisfied with the given evidence and analysis --- but I would like to get on to various matters of physics and chemistry, pure and applied, with regard to WTC 1, 2 & 6. So would each poster please indicate which building they are posting about? Thank you all.
This might be easier to resolve via a more active e-mail exchange. Try this
and scroll to the bottom of the page to read my OCR e-mail address. I am not worried about spam since this entire group of addresses is protected via Postini, for about $3/month each. Postini has a facility to allow me to block individual addresses if necessary. Thanks.
newtonnjd --- I don't think we know anymore about the damage to the south face of WTC 7 than it was 20 stories tall and on the south side. NIST seems to place the damage in the middle. I would put it further to the east myself, just based on the fact that the fire seems to be most intense there and that the east penthouse was the first to collapse.
I personally don't see how the 'kink' in WTC 7 as the collapse progressed supports either the A hypothesis (fires+damage were enough) or the D hypothesis (demolition charges were also used). In either case, imho, we are seeing the result of the beams connecting the exterior to the interior posts becoming unfastened, so that the curtain wall and exterior posts and beams have no interior support.
For everybody, please remember this site is devoted to science, physics and chemistry, both in theory and applied as in engineering and technology. I don't really care what your motivations or beliefs are, irrespective of whether you are leaning to the A side or the D side. I do care about doing careful investigation. Since the event of WTC 7 collapse is not a repeatable experiment, one needs to take into account not only the visuals but also the testimony of the firemen there. The same holds for WTC 1, 2 & 6.
I do appreciate it when people bring fresh, related evidence or ideas to the debate. I don't find helpful the reiterating of old points, but I do find summaries useful once in a while. With regard to WTC 7 Common Sense has posted one (twice) and I have posted another (once). Evidently neither was extensive enough for some here. Fine by me. I'm willing to go on until everyone is sufficiently satisfied with the given evidence and analysis --- but I would like to get on to various matters of physics and chemistry, pure and applied, with regard to WTC 1, 2 & 6. So would each poster please indicate which building they are posting about? Thank you all.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 3 2006, 10:43 PM)
QUOTE
Christophera writes:
I've explained that concrete can be completely fractured to fall instantly by a relatively small explosive centralized inside and distributed throughout the center of a wall, steel cannot without huge charges or diffcult to place shaped charges.
I've explained that concrete can be completely fractured to fall instantly by a relatively small explosive centralized inside and distributed throughout the center of a wall, steel cannot without huge charges or diffcult to place shaped charges.
Which presupposes a concrete walled core , which no one here believes in and which presupposes explosives installed during construction of the towers which no one here believes in.
,,,,,,, and you wonder why your questions don't get taken seriously??
How can you be taken seriously when you have not explained free fall, the most outrageous event of the day. Here I explain free fall and pulverization both. Free fall must be explained by the truth.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Then, .......... you cannot admit that only concrete could have this appearance.
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Apr 3 2006, 07:41 PM)
Common Sense --- Thanks for trying, but the administrator doesn't understand that I can 'log-in' to become an 'Active Member' as is listed in the home page of this site. When I am 'logged-in' and an 'Active Member' I cannot post replies. I get a message saying I don't have 'permission'.
This might be easier to resolve via a more active e-mail exchange. Try this
and scroll to the bottom of the page to read my OCR e-mail address. I am not worried about spam since this entire group of addresses is protected via Postini, for about $3/month each. Postini has a facility to allow me to block individual addresses if necessary. Thanks.
newtonnjd --- I don't think we know anymore about the damage to the south face of WTC 7 than it was 20 stories tall and on the south side. NIST seems to place the damage in the middle. I would put it further to the east myself, just based on the fact that the fire seems to be most intense there and that the east penthouse was the first to collapse.
I personally don't see how the 'kink' in WTC 7 as the collapse progressed supports either the A hypothesis (fires+damage were enough) or the D hypothesis (demolition charges were also used). In either case, imho, we are seeing the result of the beams connecting the exterior to the interior posts becoming unfastened, so that the curtain wall and exterior posts and beams have no interior support.
For everybody, please remember this site is devoted to science, physics and chemistry, both in theory and applied as in engineering and technology. I don't really care what your motivations or beliefs are, irrespective of whether you are leaning to the A side or the D side. I do care about doing careful investigation. Since the event of WTC 7 collapse is not a repeatable experiment, one needs to take into account not only the visuals but also the testimony of the firemen there. The same holds for WTC 1, 2 & 6.
I do appreciate it when people bring fresh, related evidence or ideas to the debate. I don't find helpful the reiterating of old points, but I do find summaries useful once in a while. With regard to WTC 7 Common Sense has posted one (twice) and I have posted another (once). Evidently neither was extensive enough for some here. Fine by me. I'm willing to go on until everyone is sufficiently satisfied with the given evidence and analysis --- but I would like to get on to various matters of physics and chemistry, pure and applied, with regard to WTC 1, 2 & 6. So would each poster please indicate which building they are posting about? Thank you all.
My understanding was you can log in but because you didn't validate your e mail you can't post more than 2 messages and then only as a guest. But there is another thing which I believe can cause the same issue. Check your cookie settings. You may have cookie security high and the board needs cookies to post.
I will be sending you an E-mail shortly...
This might be easier to resolve via a more active e-mail exchange. Try this
and scroll to the bottom of the page to read my OCR e-mail address. I am not worried about spam since this entire group of addresses is protected via Postini, for about $3/month each. Postini has a facility to allow me to block individual addresses if necessary. Thanks.
newtonnjd --- I don't think we know anymore about the damage to the south face of WTC 7 than it was 20 stories tall and on the south side. NIST seems to place the damage in the middle. I would put it further to the east myself, just based on the fact that the fire seems to be most intense there and that the east penthouse was the first to collapse.
I personally don't see how the 'kink' in WTC 7 as the collapse progressed supports either the A hypothesis (fires+damage were enough) or the D hypothesis (demolition charges were also used). In either case, imho, we are seeing the result of the beams connecting the exterior to the interior posts becoming unfastened, so that the curtain wall and exterior posts and beams have no interior support.
For everybody, please remember this site is devoted to science, physics and chemistry, both in theory and applied as in engineering and technology. I don't really care what your motivations or beliefs are, irrespective of whether you are leaning to the A side or the D side. I do care about doing careful investigation. Since the event of WTC 7 collapse is not a repeatable experiment, one needs to take into account not only the visuals but also the testimony of the firemen there. The same holds for WTC 1, 2 & 6.
I do appreciate it when people bring fresh, related evidence or ideas to the debate. I don't find helpful the reiterating of old points, but I do find summaries useful once in a while. With regard to WTC 7 Common Sense has posted one (twice) and I have posted another (once). Evidently neither was extensive enough for some here. Fine by me. I'm willing to go on until everyone is sufficiently satisfied with the given evidence and analysis --- but I would like to get on to various matters of physics and chemistry, pure and applied, with regard to WTC 1, 2 & 6. So would each poster please indicate which building they are posting about? Thank you all.
My understanding was you can log in but because you didn't validate your e mail you can't post more than 2 messages and then only as a guest. But there is another thing which I believe can cause the same issue. Check your cookie settings. You may have cookie security high and the board needs cookies to post.
I will be sending you an E-mail shortly...
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 02:10 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 3 2006, 03:19 PM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 3 2006, 11:54 AM)
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
Were are all the civil engineers with papers explaining how WTC7 collapsed? How about just one. It has been over four years.
They just finished the towers. That was a big job don't you think?
That was a separate event. It has been over 4 years and no so called experts have written a papers on WTC7. The fact that WTC7 collapsed should be of more concern because it is the first Steel framed building to fall from fire alone ( not hit by a plane). This should be easy if Disproportionate Global Collapse is possible.
what the core was made of is mostly irrelevent. they did the calculations, laid the charges, and blew the hell out it. it could have been titanium reinforced element 115. it wouldn't matter. they blew the hell out it.
the fact that DUST blowing out from the inside can outpace even LIGHTWIEGHT ALUMINUM/SILVER ALLOY that is falling in freefall through air, down the side of the tower , is proof that there were bombs. it doesn't hurt the proof that you can actually see the timed bombs going off as squibs in some video frames and photos.
the fact that DUST blowing out from the inside can outpace even LIGHTWIEGHT ALUMINUM/SILVER ALLOY that is falling in freefall through air, down the side of the tower , is proof that there were bombs. it doesn't hurt the proof that you can actually see the timed bombs going off as squibs in some video frames and photos.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 3 2006, 06:06 PM)
The idea of a survey of civil engineers is silly and I believe started in the "clown car". No survey is needed numeroous civil engineers from around the world contributed to or reviewed reports, papers and articles backing the collapse theory. The theory is backed by the ASCE and the AIA. So far no civil, fire or forensic engineers have gone on record as questioning it.
All this noise about them being afraid is utter nonsense people have been spouting 9/11 CT's for 4 1/2 and none of them have suffered any ill effects to speak off as a result. All those profs are still teaching at the same schools were they were teaching when this started. This is just a CT way of rationalizing away the fact that they don't have ant expert backing for their theories
I know CT's will all get into a clamour over that college student who goy shot in Minneapolis but even fetzer says "there seems to be no connection between his membership and his death. It is my opinion that what I was told is accurate and complete relative to my inquiry and that we are going to know much more very soon. ". http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/EmailNews29Mar2006.html Let's not forget there were 10 recent armed robberies in that area and that this guy was a minor player what would be accomlished by bumping him off?
Far from being "silly", I think it would be very illuminating. But the only way to know, for sure, is to actually do a survey. Your statement gives the impression that there's a huge number of civil engineers both familiar with the NIST'ian hand waving, knowledge of anomalies and prima facie evidence of CD, and are just fine with the hand-waving.
Baloney. You don't know that.
Note well that any survey worth doing would question engineers not just on whether or not they thought local collapse was possible, but also whether or not global collapse was possible, and furthermore whether global collapses would have occurred as rapidly as was observed.
In the case of the local collapse question, we would ask not for engineer's intuition, but rather for their technical opinion as to the NIST research, which involved methodologies that they should be specifically knowldedgeable about.
In the case of the global collapse questions, we would be forced to ask only for their intuitive agreement or disagreement, since NIST resorted to handwaving. There are no calculations, analysis, etc. regarding rate of collapse, and thus no such items - the stuff of which technical papers are made - is available to engineers to query them on.
You really should bear these difference in mind, otherwise we might get the impression that you are attempting to conflate these issues.
As far as the fear factor, while I haven't yet spoken to a civil or construction engineer face to face (except for a friend of mine, who certainly wasn't afraid), the fear has been made explicit by a few people personally known to me - one of whom asked me to stop cc'ing her on 911 related emails. She was afraid to even read them! I find the notion that engineers, in general, would be so different than non-engineers to be completely unsupportable, and I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.
Other people on this very thread have expressed fear specifically wrt 911, and on the Randi Rhodes forum, you can find numerous instances of more general (not necessarily 911 related) expressions of fear of their "own" government.
Your capacity for painting pretty pictures is noted, as is your lack of zeal for confirming - or disconfirming - their veracity.
If you think about it, psychologists and social scientists should be interested in this sort of subject, even absent a 911 event. I would think there is some research on the subject "Who is afraid of their own government, and why?", though I don't have time to go looking for it.
All this noise about them being afraid is utter nonsense people have been spouting 9/11 CT's for 4 1/2 and none of them have suffered any ill effects to speak off as a result. All those profs are still teaching at the same schools were they were teaching when this started. This is just a CT way of rationalizing away the fact that they don't have ant expert backing for their theories
I know CT's will all get into a clamour over that college student who goy shot in Minneapolis but even fetzer says "there seems to be no connection between his membership and his death. It is my opinion that what I was told is accurate and complete relative to my inquiry and that we are going to know much more very soon. ". http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/EmailNews29Mar2006.html Let's not forget there were 10 recent armed robberies in that area and that this guy was a minor player what would be accomlished by bumping him off?
Far from being "silly", I think it would be very illuminating. But the only way to know, for sure, is to actually do a survey. Your statement gives the impression that there's a huge number of civil engineers both familiar with the NIST'ian hand waving, knowledge of anomalies and prima facie evidence of CD, and are just fine with the hand-waving.
Baloney. You don't know that.
Note well that any survey worth doing would question engineers not just on whether or not they thought local collapse was possible, but also whether or not global collapse was possible, and furthermore whether global collapses would have occurred as rapidly as was observed.
In the case of the local collapse question, we would ask not for engineer's intuition, but rather for their technical opinion as to the NIST research, which involved methodologies that they should be specifically knowldedgeable about.
In the case of the global collapse questions, we would be forced to ask only for their intuitive agreement or disagreement, since NIST resorted to handwaving. There are no calculations, analysis, etc. regarding rate of collapse, and thus no such items - the stuff of which technical papers are made - is available to engineers to query them on.
You really should bear these difference in mind, otherwise we might get the impression that you are attempting to conflate these issues.
As far as the fear factor, while I haven't yet spoken to a civil or construction engineer face to face (except for a friend of mine, who certainly wasn't afraid), the fear has been made explicit by a few people personally known to me - one of whom asked me to stop cc'ing her on 911 related emails. She was afraid to even read them! I find the notion that engineers, in general, would be so different than non-engineers to be completely unsupportable, and I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.
Other people on this very thread have expressed fear specifically wrt 911, and on the Randi Rhodes forum, you can find numerous instances of more general (not necessarily 911 related) expressions of fear of their "own" government.
Your capacity for painting pretty pictures is noted, as is your lack of zeal for confirming - or disconfirming - their veracity.
If you think about it, psychologists and social scientists should be interested in this sort of subject, even absent a 911 event. I would think there is some research on the subject "Who is afraid of their own government, and why?", though I don't have time to go looking for it.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 3 2006, 10:43 PM)
QUOTE
Christophera writes:
I've explained that concrete can be completely fractured to fall instantly by a relatively small explosive centralized inside and distributed throughout the center of a wall, steel cannot without huge charges or diffcult to place shaped charges.
I've explained that concrete can be completely fractured to fall instantly by a relatively small explosive centralized inside and distributed throughout the center of a wall, steel cannot without huge charges or diffcult to place shaped charges.
Which presupposes a concrete walled core , which no one here believes in and which presupposes explosives installed during construction of the towers which no one here believes in.
,,,,,,, and you wonder why your questions don't get taken seriously??
It is not a matter of belief. There are facts, if one cannot recognize them, they cannot work with them.
And people here generally are not. They are working with what they know, or think they know, or what they think is relevant.
When the largest, most profound event is IGNORED, free fall, how can any of it be taken seriously?
Logically, the investigative analysis begins with the final effects and works backwards with the process of elimination. Any presumption made that prohibits the final effects is something that did not happen.
In the presence of the fact that the mayor of NY took the WTC documents,
http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html
including the plans, and will not return them. It is logical to assume that something in plans will reveal that the collapse is not possible. That is YOUR responsibility in this situation, if you want to be reasonable and credible, because I KNOW the core was cast concrete.
I've shown something that really looks like rebar to you, and I know 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS is what the image shows. The same image should reveal the "massive core columns" that the official structure presents, but no steel columns are seen in the core area.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 3 2006, 08:08 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 02:10 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 3 2006, 03:19 PM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 3 2006, 11:54 AM)
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
Were are all the civil engineers with papers explaining how WTC7 collapsed? How about just one. It has been over four years.
They just finished the towers. That was a big job don't you think?
That was a separate event. It has been over 4 years and no so called experts have written a papers on WTC7. The fact that WTC7 collapsed should be of more concern because it is the first Steel framed building to fall from fire alone ( not hit by a plane). This should be easy if Disproportionate Global Collapse is possible.
That was a seperate event. That's my point. All the resouces would go into just those two massive buildings. They had hunderds working on it. Do you have some evidence they held it up on purpose or because they can't figure out? I heard they had a public draft of the report for comment. It's not like they didn't do anything. It's just late.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 06:06 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 3 2006, 08:08 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 02:10 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 3 2006, 03:19 PM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 3 2006, 11:54 AM)
There is no reasonable doubt about the collapse of the towers until some people with relevent expertise come forward. I asked newtonnjd for an example of when all the xperts on aparticular subject were wrong and a group of laymen prove to be right. Can you think of an example.
Were are all the civil engineers with papers explaining how WTC7 collapsed? How about just one. It has been over four years.
They just finished the towers. That was a big job don't you think?
That was a separate event. It has been over 4 years and no so called experts have written a papers on WTC7. The fact that WTC7 collapsed should be of more concern because it is the first Steel framed building to fall from fire alone ( not hit by a plane). This should be easy if Disproportionate Global Collapse is possible.
That was a seperate event. That's my point. All the resouces would go into just those two massive buildings. They had hunderds working on it. Do you have some evidence they held it up on purpose or because they can't figure out? I heard they had a public draft of the report for comment. It's not like they didn't do anything. It's just late.
I am not talking about NIST. NIST can continue to postpone publication forever. Lenbrazil’s argument is experts are only qualified to question the collapse of a building. Why haven’t engineers come forward supporting Disproportionate Global Collapse without the use of explosives? Papers were written before FEMA or NIST published the reports on WTC 1 and 2. WTC7 is much more important if Disproportionate Global Collapse due to fire is possible. The government, engineers, and architects should all be interested because of safety concerns (Even if the physical evidence was destroyed in Two weeks).
Okay, regarding the flashes seen as WTC1 comes down..
Here is a reflective flash outside the profile of the building:
Another example of a reflective, falling piece of debris, the downward motion visible in this series:
Now one of the flashes that does not look like falling debris. Not only is this one markedly brighter, but it only lasts a single frame:
This is another example from a bit later:
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
Here is a reflective flash outside the profile of the building:
Another example of a reflective, falling piece of debris, the downward motion visible in this series:
Now one of the flashes that does not look like falling debris. Not only is this one markedly brighter, but it only lasts a single frame:
This is another example from a bit later:
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 3 2006, 08:11 PM)
As far as the fear factor, while I haven't yet spoken to a civil or construction engineer face to face (except for a friend of mine, who certainly wasn't afraid), the fear has been made explicit by a few people personally known to me - one of whom asked me to stop cc'ing her on 911 related emails. She was afraid to even read them! I find the notion that engineers, in general, would be so different than non-engineers to be completely unsupportable, and I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.
Someone on the Randi Rhodes board was a real civil engineer? How do you know they aren't lying? Do you have the link? Hell, do you have the paper she's afraid to hand in? Let someone else hand it in.
I'm sorry but the excuses are piling up as high as the towers themselves. If you think 3000 people died due to the government you would be very creative in finding a way to get the paper in the public. PUT IT ON THE RANDI RHOUDES FORUM! Use a public computer or someone elses. Are you a wuss too? Take it and post it in public! Once it's out there who can stop it? I can understand your female friend but isn't there ONE ball between your group? Is it Scholars for 911 Excuse or Truth!
Someone on the Randi Rhodes board was a real civil engineer? How do you know they aren't lying? Do you have the link? Hell, do you have the paper she's afraid to hand in? Let someone else hand it in.
I'm sorry but the excuses are piling up as high as the towers themselves. If you think 3000 people died due to the government you would be very creative in finding a way to get the paper in the public. PUT IT ON THE RANDI RHOUDES FORUM! Use a public computer or someone elses. Are you a wuss too? Take it and post it in public! Once it's out there who can stop it? I can understand your female friend but isn't there ONE ball between your group? Is it Scholars for 911 Excuse or Truth!
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 3 2006, 06:36 PM)
Okay, regarding the flashes seen as WTC1 comes down..
Here is a reflective flash outside the profile of the building:
Another example of a reflective, falling piece of debris, the downward motion visible in this series:
Now one of the flashes that does not look like falling debris. Not only is this one markedly brighter, but it only lasts a single frame:
This is another example from a bit later:
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
That is a lot of transformers exploding.
Great post!
Here is a reflective flash outside the profile of the building:
Another example of a reflective, falling piece of debris, the downward motion visible in this series:
Now one of the flashes that does not look like falling debris. Not only is this one markedly brighter, but it only lasts a single frame:
This is another example from a bit later:
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
That is a lot of transformers exploding.
Great post!
QUOTE
If you think 3000 people died due to the government you would be very creative in finding a way to get the paper in the public. PUT IT ON THE RANDI RHOUDES FORUM! Use a public computer or someone elses. Are you a wuss too? Take it and post it in public! Once it's out there who can stop it?
Umm.. the media can stop it by not reporting on it.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 3 2006, 06:25 PM)
QUOTE
Yeah, and from the references you give to back up the refutation of this specific claim (absolutely none), I really believe you, too.
But I gave you some. That you don't believe them is your business. I don't believe a word you say either. But here are the ones I gave you just incase...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=9&c=y
I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
DEGREES
BES Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 1969
MS Stanford University Stanford, California 1970
Engineer Stanford University Stanford, California 1972
Ph.D. Stanford University Stanford, California 1975
Post PhD Diploma International Institute for Hydrologists Delft, The Netherlands 1983
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
1973-74 Auburn University Auburn, Alabama Instructor of Civil Engineering
1974-78 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
1978-87 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1979 Northeastern University Boston, Mass. Visiting Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1987-present Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Professor of Civil Engineering
SERVICE
Department Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2000 - present
Graduate Coordinator, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1985 - 2000
Member, Exec. Committee, Utah Section, American Water Res. Assoc., 1988 - present
Member, Orem City Metropolitan Water Board, 1980 - 1990
Member, Provo City Metropolitan Water Board, 2005 - Present
ORGANIZATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Water Resources Association; Past President twice, Utah Section
American Society for Engineering Education
Tau Beta Pi, Past President, Utah Beta Section
Phi Kappa Phi and Sigma Xi
HONORS AND AWARDS
Karl G. Maeser Distinguished Teaching Award from Brigham Young University, 1988
BYU Blue Key Professor of the Year/Recognition of Excellence Award, 1993
Outstanding College Teacher Award, College of Engineering, 1988
Teacher of the Year Award, Civil Engineering Department, 1986, 1988-89, 1991-94, 1997-98, 2002, and 2004
Utah Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Engineers Joint Council, 1993
Utah Civil Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of ASCE, 1992
Utah Water Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of AWRA, 2001
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php...miller/vita.php
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2
"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display...ss.cfm?uid=1874
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D.
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html
Metamars, your hand waving is entering humming bird speed. Heh!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yeah, and from the references you give to back up the refutation of this specific claim (absolutely none), I really believe you, too. |
But I gave you some. That you don't believe them is your business. I don't believe a word you say either. But here are the ones I gave you just incase...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=9&c=y
I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
DEGREES
BES Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 1969
MS Stanford University Stanford, California 1970
Engineer Stanford University Stanford, California 1972
Ph.D. Stanford University Stanford, California 1975
Post PhD Diploma International Institute for Hydrologists Delft, The Netherlands 1983
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
1973-74 Auburn University Auburn, Alabama Instructor of Civil Engineering
1974-78 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
1978-87 Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1979 Northeastern University Boston, Mass. Visiting Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
1987-present Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Professor of Civil Engineering
SERVICE
Department Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2000 - present
Graduate Coordinator, Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1985 - 2000
Member, Exec. Committee, Utah Section, American Water Res. Assoc., 1988 - present
Member, Orem City Metropolitan Water Board, 1980 - 1990
Member, Provo City Metropolitan Water Board, 2005 - Present
ORGANIZATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Water Resources Association; Past President twice, Utah Section
American Society for Engineering Education
Tau Beta Pi, Past President, Utah Beta Section
Phi Kappa Phi and Sigma Xi
HONORS AND AWARDS
Karl G. Maeser Distinguished Teaching Award from Brigham Young University, 1988
BYU Blue Key Professor of the Year/Recognition of Excellence Award, 1993
Outstanding College Teacher Award, College of Engineering, 1988
Teacher of the Year Award, Civil Engineering Department, 1986, 1988-89, 1991-94, 1997-98, 2002, and 2004
Utah Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Engineers Joint Council, 1993
Utah Civil Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of ASCE, 1992
Utah Water Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Section of AWRA, 2001
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php...miller/vita.php
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2
"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display...ss.cfm?uid=1874
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D.
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html
Metamars, your hand waving is entering humming bird speed. Heh!
And I didn't SAY that any building fell faster than free fall. You're really losing it, aren't you?
You haven't proved that. No matter how many times you wave your hands and stomp your feet you didn't. You haven't brought ANY conclusive evidence. The evidence you think you're bringing is laughable. "Look at this grainy internet video taken from a quarter mile away! It prove! it came down in less than free fall sspeed!" HEHEHE. Wave away...
QUOTE
This is a fair question, but I anticipated it and answered! See below. If you mean, why haven't I personally approached civil engineers, the answer is that I went almost directly from being essentially immobile, to a job where I commute 20+ hours per week. However, a day off is coming.
Yeah, let me know how that works out... The point is you people have had 4 years to do so and haven't. The idea that this couldn't be done by someone else is also absurd. Make excuses much, do you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is a fair question, but I anticipated it and answered! See below. If you mean, why haven't I personally approached civil engineers, the answer is that I went almost directly from being essentially immobile, to a job where I commute 20+ hours per week. However, a day off is coming. |
Yeah, let me know how that works out... The point is you people have had 4 years to do so and haven't. The idea that this couldn't be done by someone else is also absurd. Make excuses much, do you?
Therefore, an appropriate analogy with your historian/holocaust example would be between how many Ph.D. civil engineers accepted the "reality" of Newton's laws of motion.
Simply put as many as didn't challenge it when he did it. Take about staw men. GEEZ This from someone obviously dancing on the yellow brick road. Click your heals twice will ya! "There's no place like reality, there's no place like reality..."
Professor Jones' paper is clearly at odds with the NIST'ian hand waving, so if you commit the logical fallacy of thinking that disavowing Professor Jones' paper, as in the following:
QUOTE
I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims"
is equivalent to
1) supporting the NIST'ian handwaving re "inevitable global collapse" and
2) further, even implicity supporting not just the NIST'ian handwaving re "inevitable global collapse" which is a qualitative notion, but also the quantitative notion of "inevitable global collapse" which takes just a few seconds more than free fall time in the case of WTC1&2, and about .5 seconds more in the case of WTC7
, your response might make some sense.
Your response doesn't make sense because they're not equivalent, no matter how much you might wish them to be.
I have to admit that I'm a little sympathetic to your muddled thinking, in this particular case, because in this particular case, a lot of people who are far more polite than you could ever be, and don't have an axe to grind, might have made the same mistake.
I don't have time to explain to you the meaning of the word "intuition", nor do I have the time or inclination to explain to you the difference between the words "quantitative" and "qualitative". EVen so, I would hope that you can figure these out, on your own, if you don't already know.
Need I add that the quote above is rather broad and non-specific, and thus while I can see why you would be happy to interpret their statement as "Jones is wrong about absolutely everything" (which would still be unclear - was Jones wrong about the existence of WTC7? the fact that it collapsed??, the fact that red hot metal was found 6 weeks after 9/11???), you are not justified in doing so?
Even if you surmount these conceptual hurdles, though, I'm afraid I fully expect you to fail to grasp the logical fallacy of assuming that engineers who disavow Jones' paper is the same thing as 1) and 2), above.
I welcome you to prove me wrong (regarding your ability to clarify your thinking), but I'm not holding my breath.
I think if you actually did do a survey, of civil/construction engineers who were familiar with the NIST report, as well as Jones' paper + other CD evidence, you would still find "lots" who would side with the NIST'ian handwaving in the case of WTC 1 & 2, just as you would find "lots" who would not side with NIST, and agree with Professor Jones that CD is a far better explanation (even if they pooh-pooh*** some of his arguments).*
In the case of WTC7, I think you'd find an overwhelming majority of civil/construction engineers who think the NIST'ian handwaving** is nonsense, even if they agreed that NIST's quantitative work on local collapses in WTC 1 & 2 was quite credible.
* Conceivably, a majority would prefer to make a non-commital type of response, which would not back either NIST or CD.
** I'm quite sure that NIST makes many explicit references to "global collapse" being "inevitable" when referring to WTC 1 & 2. I'm not so sure wrt WTC 7, but I'm pretty sure that both popes and non-popes agree that NIST's position is this. Consequently, I impute such a characterization to NIST, even if they are not so explicit in this case. Besides, they claim that there is no evidence for CD, which is a lie.
*** At least later versions of Jones' paper refer to Professor Judi Wood's web page, but I don't think this paper has any chance of convincing civil engineers. This does not mean that analyzing the implications of "pancaking" should not be done, but if it's done at all, it needs to be done in a way that can pass muster with civil engineers. Frankly, I would not have referred to Wood's web page, if I had been Jones.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 02:36 AM)
Okay, regarding the flashes seen as WTC1 comes down..
Here is a reflective flash outside the profile of the building:
Another example of a reflective, falling piece of debris, the downward motion visible in this series:
Now one of the flashes that does not look like falling debris. Not only is this one markedly brighter, but it only lasts a single frame:
This is another example from a bit later:
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
It really looks just like the falling alumnium/debris. Watch the glittering. The larger one is more than likely a larger piece or the light is casting on it stronger.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.w...tion.east.1.wmv
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/index2.php
Here is a reflective flash outside the profile of the building:
Another example of a reflective, falling piece of debris, the downward motion visible in this series:
Now one of the flashes that does not look like falling debris. Not only is this one markedly brighter, but it only lasts a single frame:
This is another example from a bit later:
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
It really looks just like the falling alumnium/debris. Watch the glittering. The larger one is more than likely a larger piece or the light is casting on it stronger.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.w...tion.east.1.wmv
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/index2.php
QUOTE
by Brian
CSs statement that his children lives were less important than the truth and his feigned concern for the Iraqi people tells us all we need to know about this person.
His contempt for humanity is as blatant as is it for the truth.
Foxx was ahead of the game again -
Disinfo Pro - Death Of A Once-Great Blogger -
http://www.rense.com/general70/disin.htm
CSs statement that his children lives were less important than the truth and his feigned concern for the Iraqi people tells us all we need to know about this person.
His contempt for humanity is as blatant as is it for the truth.
Foxx was ahead of the game again -
Disinfo Pro - Death Of A Once-Great Blogger -
http://www.rense.com/general70/disin.htm
Well, Brian anyone who is paying attention sees that I catch SChneib... errr - I mean "CSpam" continually with his pants down, (which explains his hatred for me).
Of course - not that ONLY I can see the 'emperor/pope' is wearing no clothes; and he is being continually tripped up by many 'clowns' who recognize those with murderous and lying traits.
You nailed him good with...
"His contempt for humanity is as blatant as is it for the truth."
Just like the "Schneibster-ooney" this new incarnation of this dark character, is...
- vile, arrogant, insulting, pope-ish, and ignorant...
- Constantly refers to the 'True Conspiracy' (which he claims we are allegedly interfering with), whilst proposing nonsensical physics - which these 'black-heart' spammers seek to promote)...
- Constantly makes allegations that 'tin-hats' are ROVE Supporters... (a double reverse psychological ploy - meant to associate CT'ers as Bush political supporters)
- A Faux democrat (as shown by his posting of the Capitol Hill Blue {'Doug Thompson'} article, then quickly abandoning it when the responses went against his use of the article
- Unending fixations on 'anal' things - gives me the opinion he is more interested in buggary than normal sexual relations... (probably NOT absolutely true - I think more accurately 'he' uses this ploy to sicken and disgust others from participating in the thread)
- His initial 'introduction' though conversations with himself (the 'old' Schneiby-Dooby-Doo) and his constant use of sock-puppets.
The psychological identity traits go on and on which shows him to be a clone of "The Schneibster".
Although the above will tread upon the sensitivites of those intelligent posters such as metamars (who has often voiced his own opinion that we can not know for certain that one poster,or another) is a paid shill...
My opinion is that we DO know for a fact that the 'black-hearts' patrol ALL 9/11 threads, and some like "CHUCKLES" aka "CSpam" aka "The Schneibster" (along with all his other "publicly registered puppets", as well as the "Unregistered Guests") who support these black-hearts are in fact outright shills sent out to cover for the murderers.
I have been 'at this' long enough to pick-up on the psychological traits of these blatant shills. These 9/11 threads are evidence (in themselves) that "spooks" are propagating a violent (at least in the verbal sense)info-war assault against those who are innocently seeking truth.
'They' are actually doing a slick job of spamming... [I'm way back (about 5 or 6 pages), so it may take a while to catch up to the current postings]... but I thought I would post this now and catch up to the spitting and insults from CIA/Schneib/CSpam later... (though I must admit I'm not really reading the spammer posts - just scrolling past for the most part unless someone else quotes his nonsense).
Keep up the good work, brian. Cheers from currently independant Canada.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 4 2006, 02:45 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 3 2006, 06:36 PM)
Okay, regarding the flashes seen as WTC1 comes down..
Here is a reflective flash outside the profile of the building:
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
That is a lot of transformers exploding. Great post!
I always liked Soundwave.
Here is a reflective flash outside the profile of the building:
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
That is a lot of transformers exploding.
Great post! I always liked Soundwave.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 4 2006, 02:40 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 3 2006, 08:11 PM)
As far as the fear factor, while I haven't yet spoken to a civil or construction engineer face to face (except for a friend of mine, who certainly wasn't afraid), the fear has been made explicit by a few people personally known to me - one of whom asked me to stop cc'ing her on 911 related emails. She was afraid to even read them! I find the notion that engineers, in general, would be so different than non-engineers to be completely unsupportable, and I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.
Someone on the Randi Rhodes board was a real civil engineer? How do you know they aren't lying? Do you have the link? Hell, do you have the paper she's afraid to hand in? Let someone else hand it in.
I'm sorry but the excuses are piling up as high as the towers themselves. If you think 3000 people died due to the government you would be very creative in finding a way to get the paper in the public. PUT IT ON THE RANDI RHOUDES FORUM! Use a public computer or someone elses. Are you a wuss too? Take it and post it in public! Once it's out there who can stop it? I can understand your female friend but isn't there ONE ball between your group? Is it Scholars for 911 Excuse or Truth!
You misunderstood my post. The person who asked to be taken off my email cc list was not an engineer, but she was certainly afraid. The emails she was receiving did not contain technical papers, but just "run of the mill" 911 stuff. (I don't remember, exactly, but there's nothing to be gained by sending technical papers to non-techies, anyway.)
Furthermore, I in no way meant to imply that the people who expressed fear on the Randi Rhodes forum were engineers. No, I didn't keep a list of links, and I'm not going to search for them. But hey, knock yourself out!
My argument was simply that since non-engineers (plus the Ph.D. techy guy I indirectly* referred to, recently), exhibit fear, there is no good reason to assume that it is absent from engineers.
Extrapolating from small samples is problematic, though, and I still prefer scientific surveys to settle even these non-technical issues.
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
It really looks just like the falling alumnium/debris. Watch the glittering. The larger one is more than likely a larger piece or the light is casting on it stronger.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.w...tion.east.1.wmv
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/index2.php
You have a new job ScottS? There is no way that is just aluminum reflecting light. Look close at the core area.
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
It really looks just like the falling alumnium/debris. Watch the glittering. The larger one is more than likely a larger piece or the light is casting on it stronger.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.w...tion.east.1.wmv
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/index2.php
You have a new job ScottS? There is no way that is just aluminum reflecting light. Look close at the core area.
I have at different angles.
Oh nevermind. I'll just make you angry.
Please ask Jones to put this next to his Building 7 squibs and white thermite charges.
Anyway newtonnjd those are my thoughts.
Best
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
It really looks just like the falling alumnium/debris. Watch the glittering. The larger one is more than likely a larger piece or the light is casting on it stronger.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.w...tion.east.1.wmv
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/index2.php
You have a new job ScottS? There is no way that is just aluminum reflecting light. Look close at the core area.
I have at different angles. So is it glitter changes made to look just like the falling debris now?
Oh nevermind. I'll just make you angry.
Please ask Jones to put this next to his Building 7 squibs and white thermite charges.
You wont make me angry, as long as you’re here trying to figure out the truth ( we need honest skeptics).
I do think Jones should add this to his paper. It is the first time I have actually seen flashes .
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
It really looks just like the falling alumnium/debris. Watch the glittering. The larger one is more than likely a larger piece or the light is casting on it stronger.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.w...tion.east.1.wmv
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/index2.php
You have a new job ScottS? There is no way that is just aluminum reflecting light. Look close at the core area.
I have at different angles. So is it glitter changes made to look just like the falling debris now?
Oh nevermind. I'll just make you angry.
Please ask Jones to put this next to his Building 7 squibs and white thermite charges.
You wont make me angry, as long as you’re here trying to figure out the truth ( we need honest skeptics).
I do think Jones should add this to his paper. It is the first time I have actually seen flashes .
You can see them in the other videos also.
Honestly I think it would hurt his paper more.
Believe it or not I've helped give info to Jones before.
I gave him some info on his melted steel piece and some other info.
Although I stated to him I didn't agree with ideas.
I've said in the past honestly I just wanted to see all the info brought out so this debate can be sped up a little.
Umm.. the media can stop it by not reporting on it.
Why would they care. The point still stands. Is it Scholars for 911 Excuse or Truth!
Someone on the Randi Rhodes board was a real civil engineer? How do you know they aren't lying? Do you have the link? Hell, do you have the paper she's afraid to hand in? Let someone else hand it in.
I'm sorry but the excuses are piling up as high as the towers themselves. If you think 3000 people died due to the government you would be very creative in finding a way to get the paper in the public. PUT IT ON THE RANDI RHOUDES FORUM! Use a public computer or someone elses. Are you a wuss too? Take it and post it in public! Once it's out there who can stop it? I can understand your female friend but isn't there ONE ball between your group? Is it Scholars for 911 Excuse or Truth!
You misunderstood my post. The person who asked to be taken off my email cc list was not an engineer, but she was certainly afraid. The emails she was receiving did not contain technical papers, but just "run of the mill" 911 stuff. (I don't remember, exactly, but there's nothing to be gained by sending technical papers to non-techies, anyway.)
Furthermore, I in no way meant to imply that the people who expressed fear on the Randi Rhodes forum were engineers. No, I didn't keep a list of links, and I'm not going to search for them. But hey, knock yourself out!
My argument was simply that since non-engineers (plus the Ph.D. techy guy I indirectly* referred to, recently), exhibit fear, there is no good reason to assume that it is absent from engineers.
Extrapolating from small samples is problematic, though, and I still prefer scientific surveys to settle even these non-technical issues.
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 3 2006, 07:02 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 02:36 AM)
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
It really looks just like the falling alumnium/debris. Watch the glittering. The larger one is more than likely a larger piece or the light is casting on it stronger.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.w...tion.east.1.wmv
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/index2.php
You have a new job ScottS?
There is no way that is just aluminum reflecting light. Look close at the core area.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 4 2006, 03:11 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 3 2006, 07:02 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 02:36 AM)
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
It really looks just like the falling alumnium/debris. Watch the glittering. The larger one is more than likely a larger piece or the light is casting on it stronger.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.w...tion.east.1.wmv
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/index2.php
You have a new job ScottS?
There is no way that is just aluminum reflecting light. Look close at the core area. I have at different angles.
Oh nevermind. I'll just make you angry.
Please ask Jones to put this next to his Building 7 squibs and white thermite charges.
Anyway newtonnjd those are my thoughts.
Best
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 3 2006, 07:20 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 4 2006, 03:11 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 3 2006, 07:02 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 02:36 AM)
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
It really looks just like the falling alumnium/debris. Watch the glittering. The larger one is more than likely a larger piece or the light is casting on it stronger.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.w...tion.east.1.wmv
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/index2.php
You have a new job ScottS?
There is no way that is just aluminum reflecting light. Look close at the core area. I have at different angles. So is it glitter changes made to look just like the falling debris now?
Oh nevermind. I'll just make you angry.
Please ask Jones to put this next to his Building 7 squibs and white thermite charges.
You wont make me angry, as long as you’re here trying to figure out the truth ( we need honest skeptics).
I do think Jones should add this to his paper. It is the first time I have actually seen flashes .
Scott - watch closely. The flashes around the core show no sign of downward motion, and in certain places flash at exactly the same location 3 or 4 times.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 3 2006, 09:36 PM)
Okay, regarding the flashes seen as WTC1 comes down..
Here is a reflective flash outside the profile of the building:
Another example of a reflective, falling piece of debris, the downward motion visible in this series:
Now one of the flashes that does not look like falling debris. Not only is this one markedly brighter, but it only lasts a single frame:
This is another example from a bit later:
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
Once again we have a reverse bomb. The buildings fall and it goes off after the building is well into the collapse. Do you have a video of a CD where the bomb goes off only after the building begins to falls?
I guess you didn't see the whole 911 witness video that comes from. The sun was at such an angle that the helicopters even shinned bright once in a while. Aluminum is perfect to create the effect. Did you know the buildings were the largest aluminum cladding job in history? They used special lightweight aluminum too. (Accounts for slow fall) Only that nutcase from 911 witness suggested the helicopter was firing missiles at the buildings. Never mind the hundreds of other videos from other angles which showed the helicopter from different angles.
But the above photo DOES show the perimeter columns FAR outpacing the building.
Here is a reflective flash outside the profile of the building:
Another example of a reflective, falling piece of debris, the downward motion visible in this series:
Now one of the flashes that does not look like falling debris. Not only is this one markedly brighter, but it only lasts a single frame:
This is another example from a bit later:
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
Once again we have a reverse bomb. The buildings fall and it goes off after the building is well into the collapse. Do you have a video of a CD where the bomb goes off only after the building begins to falls?
I guess you didn't see the whole 911 witness video that comes from. The sun was at such an angle that the helicopters even shinned bright once in a while. Aluminum is perfect to create the effect. Did you know the buildings were the largest aluminum cladding job in history? They used special lightweight aluminum too. (Accounts for slow fall) Only that nutcase from 911 witness suggested the helicopter was firing missiles at the buildings. Never mind the hundreds of other videos from other angles which showed the helicopter from different angles.
But the above photo DOES show the perimeter columns FAR outpacing the building.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 4 2006, 03:31 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 3 2006, 07:20 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 4 2006, 03:11 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 3 2006, 07:02 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 02:36 AM)
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
It really looks just like the falling alumnium/debris. Watch the glittering. The larger one is more than likely a larger piece or the light is casting on it stronger.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.w...tion.east.1.wmv
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/index2.php
You have a new job ScottS?
There is no way that is just aluminum reflecting light. Look close at the core area. I have at different angles. So is it glitter changes made to look just like the falling debris now?
Oh nevermind. I'll just make you angry.
Please ask Jones to put this next to his Building 7 squibs and white thermite charges.
You wont make me angry, as long as you’re here trying to figure out the truth ( we need honest skeptics).
I do think Jones should add this to his paper. It is the first time I have actually seen flashes .
You can see them in the other videos also.
Honestly I think it would hurt his paper more.
Believe it or not I've helped give info to Jones before.
I gave him some info on his melted steel piece and some other info.
Although I stated to him I didn't agree with ideas.
I've said in the past honestly I just wanted to see all the info brought out so this debate can be sped up a little.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 3 2006, 09:47 PM)
QUOTE
If you think 3000 people died due to the government you would be very creative in finding a way to get the paper in the public. PUT IT ON THE RANDI RHOUDES FORUM! Use a public computer or someone elses. Are you a wuss too? Take it and post it in public! Once it's out there who can stop it?
Umm.. the media can stop it by not reporting on it.
Why would they care. The point still stands. Is it Scholars for 911 Excuse or Truth!
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 03:31 AM)
Scott - watch closely. The flashes around the core show no sign of downward motion, and in certain places flash at exactly the same location 3 or 4 times.
You'll see similar effects on the other videos also out to the left side.
You'll see similar effects on the other videos also out to the left side.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 4 2006, 02:45 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 3 2006, 06:36 PM)
Okay, regarding the flashes seen as WTC1 comes down..
Here is a reflective flash outside the profile of the building:
Another example of a reflective, falling piece of debris, the downward motion visible in this series:
Now one of the flashes that does not look like falling debris. Not only is this one markedly brighter, but it only lasts a single frame:
This is another example from a bit later:
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
That is a lot of transformers exploding. Great post!
Okay, ............ now that we know you can post multiple images of inconsequence, how are you going to explain free fall? Fires won't do it, smoke and mirrors won't do it.
You continue as if it wasn't prerequisite to the entire subject. Free fall is the test of a theory to emergr as a possibility. If the explanation doesn't engage the issue, it is not an explanation.
No collapse occured at a free fall rate. NONE!!
Even IF one takes 10 seconds as the collapse time of a tower it is still 8.5% longer than free fall BUT that 10 seconds is the absolute shortest time anyone calculates as the collapse time. Other calcs show up to 16 seconds , a whole 73% longer than free fall.
Free fall is 9.8 m/s^2
A collapse time of 10 seconds would imply an accelleration of 8.3 m/s^2
( an average of 85% the accelleration due to gravity)
A collapse time of 16 seconds would imply an accelleration of 3.25 m/s^2
( an average of 33% the accelleration due to gravity)
In the case of WTC 7 the CT completely ignores the fact that internal structure falls away first leaving very little to support the exterior and thus it falls quickly. However the time of the exterior wall collapse of 6.6 seconds also is simply the shortest duration that has been reached. This is touted as 0.5 seconds more than free fall but even if accurate it represents 8.2% longer than free fall. With very little internal support this isn't unusual.
Here is a reflective flash outside the profile of the building:
Another example of a reflective, falling piece of debris, the downward motion visible in this series:
Now one of the flashes that does not look like falling debris. Not only is this one markedly brighter, but it only lasts a single frame:
This is another example from a bit later:
However, these stills do not show the stationary nature of these flashes, which seem to glitter all over the core if you're watching the right area. These stills give you an idea of where to look. Now watch the video again, enlarged to full screen, and focus on this area, and you will see numerous 'rapid-fire' flashes going off up and down the core.
Here's the link again:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
That is a lot of transformers exploding.
Great post!Okay, ............ now that we know you can post multiple images of inconsequence, how are you going to explain free fall? Fires won't do it, smoke and mirrors won't do it.
You continue as if it wasn't prerequisite to the entire subject. Free fall is the test of a theory to emergr as a possibility. If the explanation doesn't engage the issue, it is not an explanation.
Still haven't caught up... but I found this quote 'interesting' and reported it to moderators... Let's hear from the moderators on this situation...
Report this post...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=79367
Regarding the above statement by poster "Common Sense"...
Dear 'moderators'. Is it the policy of this forum to allow posters to utilize multiple screen-names?
Please respond directly to me regarding this question.
If such a situation should be allowed for one poster, should it not be available to all? IF so, this defeats the purpose of registering for inclusion to a discussion forum... (IMHO)
It is my understanding that the use of 'sock-puppets' (or multiple screen-names) is discouraged for multiple reasons of internet protocol... especially to avoid the spamming of internet forums.
The poster "Common Sense" (et al) was banned once previously for such multiple identities... and then just registered under numerous other names. It is part of my understanding that registering allows moderators to determine the IP address of the poster, and that there is ONLY ONE registration for each IP address. So... what's up?
Is this "CommEn Sense" , "CommOn Sense", "Sensible", etc... posting from one IP address - or is 'HE' posting from a bank of computers with different IP's?
"Common Sense" seems to be bragging that he has 'ways' to get around internet protocol and etiquette.
Please investigate this forum abuse.
Thanks
Foxx
Report this post...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=79367
QUOTE
"I have always said I'm sensible, commen sense, sensable and common sense. Sock puppets don't like you know who they are you tool. "
Regarding the above statement by poster "Common Sense"...
Dear 'moderators'. Is it the policy of this forum to allow posters to utilize multiple screen-names?
Please respond directly to me regarding this question.
If such a situation should be allowed for one poster, should it not be available to all? IF so, this defeats the purpose of registering for inclusion to a discussion forum... (IMHO)
It is my understanding that the use of 'sock-puppets' (or multiple screen-names) is discouraged for multiple reasons of internet protocol... especially to avoid the spamming of internet forums.
The poster "Common Sense" (et al) was banned once previously for such multiple identities... and then just registered under numerous other names. It is part of my understanding that registering allows moderators to determine the IP address of the poster, and that there is ONLY ONE registration for each IP address. So... what's up?
Is this "CommEn Sense" , "CommOn Sense", "Sensible", etc... posting from one IP address - or is 'HE' posting from a bank of computers with different IP's?
"Common Sense" seems to be bragging that he has 'ways' to get around internet protocol and etiquette.
Please investigate this forum abuse.
Thanks
Foxx
QUOTE
Christophera writes
How can you be taken seriously when you have not explained free fall, the most outrageous event of the day. Here I explain free fall and pulverization both. Free fall must be explained by the truth.
How can you be taken seriously when you have not explained free fall, the most outrageous event of the day. Here I explain free fall and pulverization both. Free fall must be explained by the truth.
No collapse occured at a free fall rate. NONE!!
Even IF one takes 10 seconds as the collapse time of a tower it is still 8.5% longer than free fall BUT that 10 seconds is the absolute shortest time anyone calculates as the collapse time. Other calcs show up to 16 seconds , a whole 73% longer than free fall.
Free fall is 9.8 m/s^2
A collapse time of 10 seconds would imply an accelleration of 8.3 m/s^2
( an average of 85% the accelleration due to gravity)
A collapse time of 16 seconds would imply an accelleration of 3.25 m/s^2
( an average of 33% the accelleration due to gravity)
In the case of WTC 7 the CT completely ignores the fact that internal structure falls away first leaving very little to support the exterior and thus it falls quickly. However the time of the exterior wall collapse of 6.6 seconds also is simply the shortest duration that has been reached. This is touted as 0.5 seconds more than free fall but even if accurate it represents 8.2% longer than free fall. With very little internal support this isn't unusual.
OK - caught up... (so far)
Some interesting points regarding 'flashes', but the photos don't REALLY convince me (sorry newtonnjd ?- although I have been hurrying and haven't yet had time to study them in depth in synch with the video)
----------
I suspect we are referencing WTC 7 here?
How do we arrive at "very little internal support" ???
Fantasy infernos?
OR
Explosive devices?
Some interesting points regarding 'flashes', but the photos don't REALLY convince me (sorry newtonnjd ?- although I have been hurrying and haven't yet had time to study them in depth in synch with the video)
----------
QUOTE
by Yid
With very little internal support this isn't unusual.
With very little internal support this isn't unusual.
I suspect we are referencing WTC 7 here?
How do we arrive at "very little internal support" ???
Fantasy infernos?
OR
Explosive devices?
QUOTE (Foxx+Apr 3 2006, 08:54 PM)
QUOTE
by Yid
With
With