QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 3 2006, 09:11 PM)
QUOTE
I was surprised by “this isn't unusual” . I am only aware of this not being unusual with a controlled demolition. Has this ever happened any other way beside CD?
Has any other similarily constructed building suffered the same damage and fires as WTC 7?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I was surprised by “this isn't unusual” . I am only aware of this not being unusual with a controlled demolition. Has this ever happened any other way beside CD? |
Has any other similarily constructed building suffered the same damage and fires as WTC 7?
this isn't unusual
QUOTE
Has any other similarily constructed building suffered the same damage and fires as WTC 7?
QUOTE (shagster+Apr 4 2006, 08:30 AM)
The beams and columns of the south core are seen from photos and video from the east side. I've posted the pics a number of times. I'll post the video shortly.
If the beams and columns look like this, ............... well you can see that the columns are not inside the core. They surround the core. Interior box columns, not core columns.
If the beams and columns look like this, ............... well you can see that the columns are not inside the core. They surround the core. Interior box columns, not core columns.
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 12:52 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 08:41 AM)
QUOTE
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)
Mini ProfilePM
Top
Mini ProfilePM
Top
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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) Mini ProfilePM Top |
The impact/fire floors suffered the damage that lead to the initial collapse. It has been shown that the energy that was available to have the upper section impact the next lower floor was 31 times the design load(for the north tower). When a load that is 31 times what a structure is designed to handle is caused to suddenly impact that structure it will cause a virtually immediate failure.
YID, I think you are guilty of you're first statement, don't you think?
No
How is it different?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 4 2006, 03:42 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 3 2006, 09:11 PM)
QUOTE
I was surprised by “this isn't unusual” . I am only aware of this not being unusual with a controlled demolition. Has this ever happened any other way beside CD?
Has any other similarily constructed building suffered the same damage and fires as WTC 7?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I was surprised by “this isn't unusual” . I am only aware of this not being unusual with a controlled demolition. Has this ever happened any other way beside CD? |
Has any other similarily constructed building suffered the same damage and fires as WTC 7?
this isn't unusual
QUOTE
Has any other similarily constructed building suffered the same damage and fires as WTC 7?
Does your mind automatically revert to misrepresentations, misquotes and partial quotes mode or do you have to hone that skill?
What isn't unusual is that with no internal support the exterior fell quickly.
What IS unusual is that this building was hit be haevy debris from a collapse of a nearby building that was more than twice as tall as #7 and that the fires that burned did so without much in the way of active firefighting and that this building housed several deisel generators and fuel tanks.
CS
Wouldn't you expect the flashes to occur across the whole width of the debris cloud if that were the case?
Wouldn't you expect the flashes to occur across the whole width of the debris cloud if that were the case?
The 911 witness video shows helicopters "Flash" as they fly around the towers.
But that flash is not just a single frame, and very obviously moves. There are also other flashes in the collapse which are obviously moving.
Are you really claiming there was just ONE flash?
Are you really claiming there was just ONE flash?
I usually see many flashes BEFORE the building falls.
In this case the initial weakening could have been done by thermite rather than explosives, so no flashes would be visible (But molten metal flowing from the building might be, and that is indeed what we see).
By the way, I am not claiming these MUST be explosives, just pointing out that they seem to differ from the behaviour of other reflective debris.
Quite right. It's a pity then that there is no sign that the observed damage could have removed anywhere near the amount of internal support to allow the exterior to meet virtually no resistance at all. However, CD is an extemely simple and elegant solution to the problem of removing the internal support so comprehensively. And we know what Occam would say about that..
The impact/fire floors suffered the damage that lead to the initial collapse. It has been shown that the energy that was available to have the upper section impact the next lower floor was 31 times the design load(for the north tower). When a load that is 31 times what a structure is designed to handle is caused to suddenly impact that structure it will cause a virtually immediate failure.
YID, I think you are guilty of you're first statement, don't you think?
No
How is it different?
Let me rephrase it then. Foxx does not believe for a minute that there was ever enough heat to cause the loacl collapse nor does he believe that a local collapse would cause more than the collapse of a few more levels.
Anytime that I have used approximation I believe that I have been careful to say so. I use terms such as 'probable' and 'possible'.
You and others on the other hand often state 'it isn't possible' while newtonnjd just said he accepts a possiblity and tried to state that most CD believers accept that possibility.
'taint true!
The quote above concerning the 31 times load factor is data from Bazant-Zhou and you know it. It is clear in their paper and I have on many occasions repeated such, that theirs is an approximation but that they consider the fact that this is an order of magnitude greater to cover the problems associated with approximations.
Again, do you have to hone this skill of misquote and misrepresentation or does it come naturally to you?
Quite right. It's a pity then that there is no sign that the observed damage could have removed anywhere near the amount of internal support to allow the exterior to meet virtually no resistance at all. However, CD is an extemely simple and elegant solution to the problem of removing the internal support so comprehensively. And we know what Occam would say about that..
<<sighs>>
read the report
read the report
read the report
You wish to continue arguing this then read the report rather than requiring me to give you the Reader's Digest Condensed Version' .
The NIST report shows that their modelling of many different column failures shows that only initial failure of two or three could match the observed collape.
If you are going to try and state that the NIST findings are correct except for what caused the initial columns to fail and that it was explosives that did it then you will have to show evidence that explosives were in place.
You could predict a flash to occur only when a piece of aluminum hits the right angle. It all depends on the debris and it's angle to the sun.
But I WOULD explect more flashes if they are in fact cutting this massive steel tower. Where are all the other "flashes?" Reason why has a very good photo of how many explosions is needed to bring down a simple bridge. Surely the towers needed much, much more if the argument is it couldn't fall to the gound without explosives along the way...
You could predict a flash to occur only when a piece of aluminum hits the right angle. It all depends on the debris and it's angle to the sun.
But I WOULD explect more flashes if they are in fact cutting this massive steel tower. Where are all the other "flashes?" Reason why has a very good photo of how many explosions is needed to bring down a simple bridge. Surely the towers needed much, much more if the argument is it couldn't fall to the gound without explosives along the way...
But that flash is not just a single frame, and very obviously moves. There are also other flashes in the collapse which are obviously moving.
You could predict flashes of light reaching the lens of the camera only when the aluminum hits just the right angle. In fact I beleve the CD reasonwhy produced shows static flashes THEN and only THEN does the steel fall away.
I still can't get over this little flash (Along with other little moving flashes) bringing down that massive building AFTER the building is on it's way down.
We can play christopher here all day. You can say the flash is an explosive, I can say it's aluminum and Christopher can say it's the light of an explosion cutting concrete and rebar. The point is we know there was the mother of all aluminum siding jobs at the towers. Is that what it is? Again, I really don't know but neither do you. It really is poor evidence of anything. Surely you have something better...
QUOTE
Can anyone here say that so called "flash" isn't in front of the cloud?
Wouldn't you expect the flashes to occur across the whole width of the debris cloud if that were the case?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Can anyone here say that so called "flash" isn't in front of the cloud? |
Wouldn't you expect the flashes to occur across the whole width of the debris cloud if that were the case?
The 911 witness video shows helicopters "Flash" as they fly around the towers.
But that flash is not just a single frame, and very obviously moves. There are also other flashes in the collapse which are obviously moving.
QUOTE
One small flash after the building is falling.
Are you really claiming there was just ONE flash?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One small flash after the building is falling. |
Are you really claiming there was just ONE flash?
I usually see many flashes BEFORE the building falls.
QUOTE
3) None of the flashes begin before the building collapse. A prerequiste to any CD.
In this case the initial weakening could have been done by thermite rather than explosives, so no flashes would be visible (But molten metal flowing from the building might be, and that is indeed what we see).
By the way, I am not claiming these MUST be explosives, just pointing out that they seem to differ from the behaviour of other reflective debris.
QUOTE
What isn't unusual is that with no internal support the exterior fell quickly.
Quite right. It's a pity then that there is no sign that the observed damage could have removed anywhere near the amount of internal support to allow the exterior to meet virtually no resistance at all. However, CD is an extemely simple and elegant solution to the problem of removing the internal support so comprehensively. And we know what Occam would say about that..
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 12:52 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 08:41 AM)
QUOTE
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)
Mini ProfilePM
Top
Mini ProfilePM
Top
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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) Mini ProfilePM Top |
The impact/fire floors suffered the damage that lead to the initial collapse. It has been shown that the energy that was available to have the upper section impact the next lower floor was 31 times the design load(for the north tower). When a load that is 31 times what a structure is designed to handle is caused to suddenly impact that structure it will cause a virtually immediate failure.
YID, I think you are guilty of you're first statement, don't you think?
No
How is it different?
Let me rephrase it then. Foxx does not believe for a minute that there was ever enough heat to cause the loacl collapse nor does he believe that a local collapse would cause more than the collapse of a few more levels.
Anytime that I have used approximation I believe that I have been careful to say so. I use terms such as 'probable' and 'possible'.
You and others on the other hand often state 'it isn't possible' while newtonnjd just said he accepts a possiblity and tried to state that most CD believers accept that possibility.
'taint true!
The quote above concerning the 31 times load factor is data from Bazant-Zhou and you know it. It is clear in their paper and I have on many occasions repeated such, that theirs is an approximation but that they consider the fact that this is an order of magnitude greater to cover the problems associated with approximations.
Again, do you have to hone this skill of misquote and misrepresentation or does it come naturally to you?
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE
What isn't unusual is that with no internal support the exterior fell quickly.
Quite right. It's a pity then that there is no sign that the observed damage could have removed anywhere near the amount of internal support to allow the exterior to meet virtually no resistance at all. However, CD is an extemely simple and elegant solution to the problem of removing the internal support so comprehensively. And we know what Occam would say about that..
<<sighs>>
read the report
read the report
read the report
You wish to continue arguing this then read the report rather than requiring me to give you the Reader's Digest Condensed Version' .
The NIST report shows that their modelling of many different column failures shows that only initial failure of two or three could match the observed collape.
If you are going to try and state that the NIST findings are correct except for what caused the initial columns to fail and that it was explosives that did it then you will have to show evidence that explosives were in place.
QUOTE (brian+Apr 4 2006, 12:55 PM)
Limited hang out but any publicity ....
Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect
Official version of events a conspiracy theory, says drills were cover for attacks
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 4 2006
The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President *** Cheney. --
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april...mainsuspect.htm
Does he believe in CD? In MIHOP?
Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect
Official version of events a conspiracy theory, says drills were cover for attacks
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 4 2006
The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President *** Cheney. --
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april...mainsuspect.htm
Does he believe in CD? In MIHOP?
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 06:11 PM)
In this case the initial weakening could have been done by thermite rather than explosives, so no flashes would be visible (But molten metal flowing from the building might be, and that is indeed what we see).
By the way, I am not claiming these MUST be explosives, just pointing out that they seem to differ from the behaviour of other reflective debris.
I've not seen molten steel flowing from the tower. I did see aluminum. Steel sparks intensly if it touches things while falling. It is also basically white in color turning red as it cools.
Thermite, in quantity, was absolutely used in the basement and the first floor on some interior box columns, very thick steel. Up to 5 inches. It created the molten steel that pooled in the basement to remain liquid for 5 weeks.
By the way, I am not claiming these MUST be explosives, just pointing out that they seem to differ from the behaviour of other reflective debris.
I've not seen molten steel flowing from the tower. I did see aluminum. Steel sparks intensly if it touches things while falling. It is also basically white in color turning red as it cools.
Thermite, in quantity, was absolutely used in the basement and the first floor on some interior box columns, very thick steel. Up to 5 inches. It created the molten steel that pooled in the basement to remain liquid for 5 weeks.
Can anyone explain to me how flashes that occur outside the building, possibly 100 feet from the building, could in any way be explosions that in anyway contribute to the collapse of the building?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 06:31 PM)
Can anyone explain to me how flashes that occur outside the building, possibly 100 feet from the building, could in any way be explosions that in anyway contribute to the collapse of the building?
sure, yesitdid...
more misfires. thermite(or rdx or whatever) is seen shooting many storeys below the collapse front.
the triggering mechanisms of the various destructive devices used may have also varied.
first, a slow erosion by thermite, and also some major support knocked out with 'secondary explosions', and then the timed sequence of 'squibs' which systematically 'unzip' the building.
some are triggered by radio, some by blast pressure.
columns that are already falling from having their 'feet kicked out' from under them, are still being 'unzipped' as they fall.
you couldn't figure that out?
-newton's sockpuppet (didn't sign in, no biggie)
sure, yesitdid...
more misfires. thermite(or rdx or whatever) is seen shooting many storeys below the collapse front.
the triggering mechanisms of the various destructive devices used may have also varied.
first, a slow erosion by thermite, and also some major support knocked out with 'secondary explosions', and then the timed sequence of 'squibs' which systematically 'unzip' the building.
some are triggered by radio, some by blast pressure.
columns that are already falling from having their 'feet kicked out' from under them, are still being 'unzipped' as they fall.
you couldn't figure that out?
-newton's sockpuppet (didn't sign in, no biggie)
QUOTE
Wouldn't you expect the flashes to occur across the whole width of the debris cloud if that were the case?
You could predict a flash to occur only when a piece of aluminum hits the right angle. It all depends on the debris and it's angle to the sun.
But I WOULD explect more flashes if they are in fact cutting this massive steel tower. Where are all the other "flashes?" Reason why has a very good photo of how many explosions is needed to bring down a simple bridge. Surely the towers needed much, much more if the argument is it couldn't fall to the gound without explosives along the way...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Wouldn't you expect the flashes to occur across the whole width of the debris cloud if that were the case? |
You could predict a flash to occur only when a piece of aluminum hits the right angle. It all depends on the debris and it's angle to the sun.
But I WOULD explect more flashes if they are in fact cutting this massive steel tower. Where are all the other "flashes?" Reason why has a very good photo of how many explosions is needed to bring down a simple bridge. Surely the towers needed much, much more if the argument is it couldn't fall to the gound without explosives along the way...
But that flash is not just a single frame, and very obviously moves. There are also other flashes in the collapse which are obviously moving.
You could predict flashes of light reaching the lens of the camera only when the aluminum hits just the right angle. In fact I beleve the CD reasonwhy produced shows static flashes THEN and only THEN does the steel fall away.
I still can't get over this little flash (Along with other little moving flashes) bringing down that massive building AFTER the building is on it's way down.
We can play christopher here all day. You can say the flash is an explosive, I can say it's aluminum and Christopher can say it's the light of an explosion cutting concrete and rebar. The point is we know there was the mother of all aluminum siding jobs at the towers. Is that what it is? Again, I really don't know but neither do you. It really is poor evidence of anything. Surely you have something better...
QUOTE (stone's throw+Apr 4 2006, 01:52 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 06:31 PM)
Can anyone explain to me how flashes that occur outside the building, possibly 100 feet from the building, could in any way be explosions that in anyway contribute to the collapse of the building?
sure, yesitdid...
more misfires. thermite(or rdx or whatever) is seen shooting many storeys below the collapse front.
the triggering mechanisms of the various destructive devices used may have also varied.
first, a slow erosion by thermite, and also some major support knocked out with 'secondary explosions', and then the timed sequence of 'squibs' which systematically 'unzip' the building.
some are triggered by radio, some by blast pressure.
columns that are already falling from having their 'feet kicked out' from under them, are still being 'unzipped' as they fall.
you couldn't figure that out?
-newton's sockpuppet (didn't sign in, no biggie)
I notice no one wants to answer this question brought up a long time ago. If it was highly volatile thermite, how did it not go off during the plane impact and fires afterwards? Was the charge in like a black box designed to take the heat of an airliner impact and subsequent fire? Was it a refrigerated box? I just can't get past this...
The impact/fire floors suffered the damage that lead to the initial collapse. It has been shown that the energy that was available to have the upper section impact the next lower floor was 31 times the design load(for the north tower). When a load that is 31 times what a structure is designed to handle is caused to suddenly impact that structure it will cause a virtually immediate failure.
YID, I think you are guilty of you're first statement, don't you think?
No
How is it different?
Let me rephrase it then. Foxx does not believe for a minute that there was ever enough heat to cause the loacl collapse nor does he believe that a local collapse would cause more than the collapse of a few more levels.
Anytime that I have used approximation I believe that I have been careful to say so. I use terms such as 'probable' and 'possible'.
You and others on the other hand often state 'it isn't possible' while newtonnjd just said he accepts a possiblity and tried to state that most CD believers accept that possibility.
'taint true!
The quote above concerning the 31 times load factor is data from Bazant-Zhou and you know it. It is clear in their paper and I have on many occasions repeated such, that theirs is an approximation but that they consider the fact that this is an order of magnitude greater to cover the problems associated with approximations.
Again, do you have to hone this skill of misquote and misrepresentation or does it come naturally to you?
I'm learning the rules from you YID. So you are telling me that you didn't misrepresent the B-Z load factors making them look more overwhelming than they truly are?
I notice no one wants to answer this question brought up a long time ago. If it was highly volatile thermite, how did it not go off during the plane impact and fires afterwards? Was the charge in like a black box designed to take the heat of an airliner impact and subsequent fire? Was it a refrigerated box? I just can't get past this...
Who said it was " highly volatile thermite"?
<<sighs>>
read the report
read the report
read the report
You wish to continue arguing this then read the report rather than requiring me to give you the Reader's Digest Condensed Version' .
The NIST report shows that their modelling of many different column failures shows that only initial failure of two or three could match the observed collape.
If you are going to try and state that the NIST findings are correct except for what caused the initial columns to fail and that it was explosives that did it then you will have to show evidence that explosives were in place.
What NIST report explains the column failures?
You could predict a flash to occur only when a piece of aluminum hits the right angle. It all depends on the debris and it's angle to the sun.
But I WOULD explect more flashes if they are in fact cutting this massive steel tower. Where are all the other "flashes?" Reason why has a very good photo of how many explosions is needed to bring down a simple bridge. Surely the towers needed much, much more if the argument is it couldn't fall to the gound without explosives along the way...
You could predict a flash to occur only when a piece of aluminum hits the right angle. It all depends on the debris and it's angle to the sun.
But I WOULD explect more flashes if they are in fact cutting this massive steel tower. Where are all the other "flashes?" Reason why has a very good photo of how many explosions is needed to bring down a simple bridge. Surely the towers needed much, much more if the argument is it couldn't fall to the gound without explosives along the way...
But that flash is not just a single frame, and very obviously moves. There are also other flashes in the collapse which are obviously moving.
You could predict flashes of light reaching the lens of the camera only when the aluminum hits just the right angle. In fact I beleve the CD reasonwhy produced shows static flashes THEN and only THEN does the steel fall away.
I still can't get over this little flash (Along with other little moving flashes) bringing down that massive building AFTER the building is on it's way down.
We can play christopher here all day. You can say the flash is an explosive, I can say it's aluminum and Christopher can say it's the light of an explosion cutting concrete and rebar. The point is we know there was the mother of all aluminum siding jobs at the towers. Is that what it is? Again, I really don't know but neither do you. It really is poor evidence of anything. Surely you have something better...
I disagree, people need to watch the video and come to there own conclusions. Consider Christopher's theory , everyone has looked at the information and decided he is either a disinformationist or has a screw loose. Now he is ignored by all but spammers.
This is similar to controlled demolition videos I have watched. Your idea that flashes only occur before the collapse is not correct, watch some cd clips . Floors with outside walls of mostly glass windows somehow creating pressure and blowing off aluminum does not seam reasonable to me. Dismissing everything because we can not come to an agreement would leave us conveniently with the OCT.
I agree with reasonwhy. These guys will accept nothing less than video of the team placing the charges, and yet they have nothing to explain the fall time and symmetry of collapse of WTC 7. Even then, they have to bring in selective qoutes to make it seem remotely possible. It's just not.
sure, yesitdid...
more misfires. thermite(or rdx or whatever) is seen shooting many storeys below the collapse front.
the triggering mechanisms of the various destructive devices used may have also varied.
first, a slow erosion by thermite, and also some major support knocked out with 'secondary explosions', and then the timed sequence of 'squibs' which systematically 'unzip' the building.
some are triggered by radio, some by blast pressure.
columns that are already falling from having their 'feet kicked out' from under them, are still being 'unzipped' as they fall.
you couldn't figure that out?
-newton's sockpuppet (didn't sign in, no biggie)
I notice no one wants to answer this question brought up a long time ago. If it was highly volatile thermite, how did it not go off during the plane impact and fires afterwards? Was the charge in like a black box designed to take the heat of an airliner impact and subsequent fire? Was it a refrigerated box? I just can't get past this...
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 12:52 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 08:41 AM)
QUOTE
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)
Mini ProfilePM
Top
Mini ProfilePM
Top
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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) Mini ProfilePM Top |
The impact/fire floors suffered the damage that lead to the initial collapse. It has been shown that the energy that was available to have the upper section impact the next lower floor was 31 times the design load(for the north tower). When a load that is 31 times what a structure is designed to handle is caused to suddenly impact that structure it will cause a virtually immediate failure.
YID, I think you are guilty of you're first statement, don't you think?
No
How is it different?
Let me rephrase it then. Foxx does not believe for a minute that there was ever enough heat to cause the loacl collapse nor does he believe that a local collapse would cause more than the collapse of a few more levels.
Anytime that I have used approximation I believe that I have been careful to say so. I use terms such as 'probable' and 'possible'.
You and others on the other hand often state 'it isn't possible' while newtonnjd just said he accepts a possiblity and tried to state that most CD believers accept that possibility.
'taint true!
The quote above concerning the 31 times load factor is data from Bazant-Zhou and you know it. It is clear in their paper and I have on many occasions repeated such, that theirs is an approximation but that they consider the fact that this is an order of magnitude greater to cover the problems associated with approximations.
Again, do you have to hone this skill of misquote and misrepresentation or does it come naturally to you?
I'm learning the rules from you YID. So you are telling me that you didn't misrepresent the B-Z load factors making them look more overwhelming than they truly are?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 4 2006, 11:48 AM)
I notice no one wants to answer this question brought up a long time ago. If it was highly volatile thermite, how did it not go off during the plane impact and fires afterwards? Was the charge in like a black box designed to take the heat of an airliner impact and subsequent fire? Was it a refrigerated box? I just can't get past this...
Who said it was " highly volatile thermite"?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 10:24 AM)
<<sighs>>
read the report
read the report
read the report
You wish to continue arguing this then read the report rather than requiring me to give you the Reader's Digest Condensed Version' .
The NIST report shows that their modelling of many different column failures shows that only initial failure of two or three could match the observed collape.
If you are going to try and state that the NIST findings are correct except for what caused the initial columns to fail and that it was explosives that did it then you will have to show evidence that explosives were in place.
What NIST report explains the column failures?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 4 2006, 11:40 AM)
QUOTE
Wouldn't you expect the flashes to occur across the whole width of the debris cloud if that were the case?
You could predict a flash to occur only when a piece of aluminum hits the right angle. It all depends on the debris and it's angle to the sun.
But I WOULD explect more flashes if they are in fact cutting this massive steel tower. Where are all the other "flashes?" Reason why has a very good photo of how many explosions is needed to bring down a simple bridge. Surely the towers needed much, much more if the argument is it couldn't fall to the gound without explosives along the way...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Wouldn't you expect the flashes to occur across the whole width of the debris cloud if that were the case? |
You could predict a flash to occur only when a piece of aluminum hits the right angle. It all depends on the debris and it's angle to the sun.
But I WOULD explect more flashes if they are in fact cutting this massive steel tower. Where are all the other "flashes?" Reason why has a very good photo of how many explosions is needed to bring down a simple bridge. Surely the towers needed much, much more if the argument is it couldn't fall to the gound without explosives along the way...
But that flash is not just a single frame, and very obviously moves. There are also other flashes in the collapse which are obviously moving.
You could predict flashes of light reaching the lens of the camera only when the aluminum hits just the right angle. In fact I beleve the CD reasonwhy produced shows static flashes THEN and only THEN does the steel fall away.
I still can't get over this little flash (Along with other little moving flashes) bringing down that massive building AFTER the building is on it's way down.
We can play christopher here all day. You can say the flash is an explosive, I can say it's aluminum and Christopher can say it's the light of an explosion cutting concrete and rebar. The point is we know there was the mother of all aluminum siding jobs at the towers. Is that what it is? Again, I really don't know but neither do you. It really is poor evidence of anything. Surely you have something better...
I disagree, people need to watch the video and come to there own conclusions. Consider Christopher's theory , everyone has looked at the information and decided he is either a disinformationist or has a screw loose. Now he is ignored by all but spammers.
This is similar to controlled demolition videos I have watched. Your idea that flashes only occur before the collapse is not correct, watch some cd clips . Floors with outside walls of mostly glass windows somehow creating pressure and blowing off aluminum does not seam reasonable to me. Dismissing everything because we can not come to an agreement would leave us conveniently with the OCT.
test
test
test
QUOTE
This is similar to controlled demolition videos I have watched. Your idea that flashes only occur before the collapse is not correct, watch some cd clips . Floors with mostly glass windows somehow creating pressure and blowing off aluminum does not seam reasonable to me. Dismissing everything because we can not come to an agreement would leave us conveniently with the OCT.
I agree with reasonwhy. These guys will accept nothing less than video of the team placing the charges, and yet they have nothing to explain the fall time and symmetry of collapse of WTC 7. Even then, they have to bring in selective qoutes to make it seem remotely possible. It's just not.
QUOTE (stone's throw+Apr 4 2006, 06:52 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 06:31 PM)
Can anyone explain to me how flashes that occur outside the building, possibly 100 feet from the building, could in any way be explosions that in anyway contribute to the collapse of the building?
sure, yesitdid...
more misfires. thermite(or rdx or whatever) is seen shooting many storeys below the collapse front.
the triggering mechanisms of the various destructive devices used may have also varied.
first, a slow erosion by thermite, and also some major support knocked out with 'secondary explosions', and then the timed sequence of 'squibs' which systematically 'unzip' the building.
some are triggered by radio, some by blast pressure.
columns that are already falling from having their 'feet kicked out' from under them, are still being 'unzipped' as they fall.
you couldn't figure that out?
-newton's sockpuppet (didn't sign in, no biggie)
Nice tale, no evidence. In fact if thermite was used there would be several tell tale signs such as (in the case of diasite) a hydrogen sulfide smell, and in the case of other thermite mixes the distinct sight of a thermite burn. The closest thing to the later occurs in ONE corner of ONE tower.
However I am asking about flashes that are occuring in newtonnjd's photos dozens of feet away from the towers in the dust cloud. They can't be powder thermite as this would have been widely dispersed in being blown out of the towers with the dust and debris and individual particles would burn out quickly, others would not ignite since they would be too far apart to reach ignition temp. Diasite thermite mixes would fare little better. It can't be RDX or C4 since detonating such after the collapse would not make sense and if it is as you claim a misfire that somehow fired after the collapse front went by then
a ) it wasn't needed, the building collapsed without it
b ) what caused it to finally fire if the original detonator didn't? Keep in mind that whatever packages they were supposedly in would have been ,,,, uh ,,, disturbed to say the least by the collapsing building. If your contention would be that impacts is enough to set off C4 or RDX please provide data to back that up.
The impact/fire floors suffered the damage that lead to the initial collapse. It has been shown that the energy that was available to have the upper section impact the next lower floor was 31 times the design load(for the north tower). When a load that is 31 times what a structure is designed to handle is caused to suddenly impact that structure it will cause a virtually immediate failure.
YID, I think you are guilty of you're first statement, don't you think?
No
How is it different?
Let me rephrase it then. Foxx does not believe for a minute that there was ever enough heat to cause the local collapse nor does he believe that a local collapse would cause more than the collapse of a few more levels.
Anytime that I have used approximation I believe that I have been careful to say so. I use terms such as 'probable' and 'possible'.
You and others on the other hand often state 'it isn't possible' while newtonnjd just said he accepts a possibility and tried to state that most CD believers accept that possibility.
'taint true!
The quote above concerning the 31 times load factor is data from Bazant-Zhou and you know it. It is clear in their paper and I have on many occasions repeated such, that theirs is an approximation but that they consider the fact that this is an order of magnitude greater to cover the problems associated with approximations.
Again, do you have to hone this skill of misquote and misrepresentation or does it come naturally to you?
I'm learning the rules from you YID. So you are telling me that you didn't misrepresent the B-Z load factors making them look more overwhelming than they truly are?
YES!
As I said I have been quite careful to say that B-Z was a simplified model or an approximation. I may not have said so every single time but the number of times that B-Z has been brought up would suggest that any competent and honest researcher would have read through B-Z's paper and seen there language for themselves. Those not willing to do so and coming to an erroneous conclusion based on what other CD proponent sites say are either lazy or dishonest.
Pick one!
To his credit newtonnjd at least acknowledged that it is possible that impact and fires caused the collapses but that in his opinion it was less likely than the use of explosives.
I will go just as far and state that it is possible that a vast , complicated and complex plot by gov't officials was carried out on 9/11 in part utilizing explosives to blast the towers to "bits" (Foxx's word) and to bring WTC 7 relatively gently down in place. I just believe it highly unlikely and a hypothesis for which there is precious little evidence.
I notice no one wants to answer this question brought up a long time ago. If it was highly volatile thermite, how did it not go off during the plane impact and fires afterwards? Was the charge in like a black box designed to take the heat of an airliner impact and subsequent fire? Was it a refrigerated box? I just can't get past this...
Who said it was " highly volatile thermite"?
My bad, I was thinking or thermobaric as in fuel that ignites in air. I don't know much about thermite other than you would need a whole lot to bring the buildings down. Tons I hear. Someone figured that out in this thread.
The impact could well have set off charges.. but how would the resulting explosions have stood out from the far bigger explosion and fireball caused directly by the plane?
sure, yesitdid...
more misfires. thermite(or rdx or whatever) is seen shooting many storeys below the collapse front.
the triggering mechanisms of the various destructive devices used may have also varied.
first, a slow erosion by thermite, and also some major support knocked out with 'secondary explosions', and then the timed sequence of 'squibs' which systematically 'unzip' the building.
some are triggered by radio, some by blast pressure.
columns that are already falling from having their 'feet kicked out' from under them, are still being 'unzipped' as they fall.
you couldn't figure that out?
-newton's sockpuppet (didn't sign in, no biggie)
Nice tale, no evidence. In fact if thermite was used there would be several tell tale signs such as (in the case of diasite) a hydrogen sulfide smell, and in the case of other thermite mixes the distinct sight of a thermite burn. The closest thing to the later occurs in ONE corner of ONE tower.
However I am asking about flashes that are occuring in newtonnjd's photos dozens of feet away from the towers in the dust cloud. They can't be powder thermite as this would have been widely dispersed in being blown out of the towers with the dust and debris and individual particles would burn out quickly, others would not ignite since they would be too far apart to reach ignition temp. Diasite thermite mixes would fare little better. It can't be RDX or C4 since detonating such after the collapse would not make sense and if it is as you claim a misfire that somehow fired after the collapse front went by then
a ) it wasn't needed, the building collapsed without it
b ) what caused it to finally fire if the original detonator didn't? Keep in mind that whatever packages they were supposedly in would have been ,,,, uh ,,, disturbed to say the least by the collapsing building. If your contention would be that impacts is enough to set off C4 or RDX please provide data to back that up.
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 07:57 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 12:52 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 08:41 AM)
QUOTE
Lie first and increase the number of believers and only later tell them that some arguments are not intended to be fully supported. (hey didn't Peter or Paul say something similar? Foxx or steve 52 would know)
Mini ProfilePM
Top
Mini ProfilePM
Top
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lie first and increase the number of believers and only later tell them that some arguments are not intended to be fully supported. (hey didn't Peter or Paul say something similar? Foxx or steve 52 would know) Mini ProfilePM Top |
The impact/fire floors suffered the damage that lead to the initial collapse. It has been shown that the energy that was available to have the upper section impact the next lower floor was 31 times the design load(for the north tower). When a load that is 31 times what a structure is designed to handle is caused to suddenly impact that structure it will cause a virtually immediate failure.
YID, I think you are guilty of you're first statement, don't you think?
No
How is it different?
Let me rephrase it then. Foxx does not believe for a minute that there was ever enough heat to cause the local collapse nor does he believe that a local collapse would cause more than the collapse of a few more levels.
Anytime that I have used approximation I believe that I have been careful to say so. I use terms such as 'probable' and 'possible'.
You and others on the other hand often state 'it isn't possible' while newtonnjd just said he accepts a possibility and tried to state that most CD believers accept that possibility.
'taint true!
The quote above concerning the 31 times load factor is data from Bazant-Zhou and you know it. It is clear in their paper and I have on many occasions repeated such, that theirs is an approximation but that they consider the fact that this is an order of magnitude greater to cover the problems associated with approximations.
Again, do you have to hone this skill of misquote and misrepresentation or does it come naturally to you?
I'm learning the rules from you YID. So you are telling me that you didn't misrepresent the B-Z load factors making them look more overwhelming than they truly are?
YES!
As I said I have been quite careful to say that B-Z was a simplified model or an approximation. I may not have said so every single time but the number of times that B-Z has been brought up would suggest that any competent and honest researcher would have read through B-Z's paper and seen there language for themselves. Those not willing to do so and coming to an erroneous conclusion based on what other CD proponent sites say are either lazy or dishonest.
Pick one!
To his credit newtonnjd at least acknowledged that it is possible that impact and fires caused the collapses but that in his opinion it was less likely than the use of explosives.
I will go just as far and state that it is possible that a vast , complicated and complex plot by gov't officials was carried out on 9/11 in part utilizing explosives to blast the towers to "bits" (Foxx's word) and to bring WTC 7 relatively gently down in place. I just believe it highly unlikely and a hypothesis for which there is precious little evidence.
Also, if the collapse set it off why didn't the impact set off the charges on the impact level?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 4 2006, 03:14 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 4 2006, 11:48 AM)
I notice no one wants to answer this question brought up a long time ago. If it was highly volatile thermite, how did it not go off during the plane impact and fires afterwards? Was the charge in like a black box designed to take the heat of an airliner impact and subsequent fire? Was it a refrigerated box? I just can't get past this...
Who said it was " highly volatile thermite"?
My bad, I was thinking or thermobaric as in fuel that ignites in air. I don't know much about thermite other than you would need a whole lot to bring the buildings down. Tons I hear. Someone figured that out in this thread.
Here is a general question regarding all of the buildings under discussion, but particularly with regard to WTC 7 for me just now --- Don't fire departments, everywhere, have some investigator(s) look through the remains for evidence of how the fire started? (Recently in a city about 100 km from here the conclusion was arson...) So did not the NYFD have someone watching the excavations of the ruins? If so, I suppose there is a report somewhere in the NYC archives.
Regarding whether or not steel was recovered from WTC 7 --- Way back was posted the claim that steel recovery was a "volunteer effort". This means it was probably not that well organized or controlled. Archeology graduate students study for at least a year regarding how to dig a site --- after all, you only get to do this once, so you had better be quite sure that everything is controlled, organized and recorded. But as steel recovery was volunteer, it is easy for me to believe that there was some confusion about just where the steel was recovered from... NIST's conclusion is finally that none was recovered from WTC 7 after some earlier confusion about the matter. Nobody's lying, just disorganized.
Finally, the good doctor quoted in an earlier post who claimed that "molten" steel was recovered from the WTC 7 pit was also mistaken, I believe. I doubt he was an eyewitness. I have yet to see any visuals or eyewitness reports of "molten" steel removed from the WTC 7 pit.
Regarding whether or not steel was recovered from WTC 7 --- Way back was posted the claim that steel recovery was a "volunteer effort". This means it was probably not that well organized or controlled. Archeology graduate students study for at least a year regarding how to dig a site --- after all, you only get to do this once, so you had better be quite sure that everything is controlled, organized and recorded. But as steel recovery was volunteer, it is easy for me to believe that there was some confusion about just where the steel was recovered from... NIST's conclusion is finally that none was recovered from WTC 7 after some earlier confusion about the matter. Nobody's lying, just disorganized.
Finally, the good doctor quoted in an earlier post who claimed that "molten" steel was recovered from the WTC 7 pit was also mistaken, I believe. I doubt he was an eyewitness. I have yet to see any visuals or eyewitness reports of "molten" steel removed from the WTC 7 pit.
I'm sure this has been linked before, but here is the molten metal, and how it compares to the thermite reaction:
http://www.checktheevidence.com//911/Thermite.htm
Clearly it is consistent with thermite. But to be proof of thermite, all other alternatives must be ruled out. So far, none of the alternatives can be made to fit.
YID makes the point that it is only seen in one location, implying that it was therefore not widespread as thermite would have to be. But if it was confined to the core, it would not be easily visible, and may only have been able to escape in the area of damaged floors.
Also..
These are not the flashes I am talking about. The ones outside the profile of the building are obviously pieces of reflective debris. The ones that seem to glitter against the exposed core seem fixed against it. It's not possible to illustrate this with stills, you have to watch closely, probably several times - I do not get the sense of any of the core flashes moving anywhere. Of course, there is a subjective element to this, but that's the impression I get.
http://www.checktheevidence.com//911/Thermite.htm
Clearly it is consistent with thermite. But to be proof of thermite, all other alternatives must be ruled out. So far, none of the alternatives can be made to fit.
YID makes the point that it is only seen in one location, implying that it was therefore not widespread as thermite would have to be. But if it was confined to the core, it would not be easily visible, and may only have been able to escape in the area of damaged floors.
Also..
QUOTE
However I am asking about flashes that are occuring in newtonnjd's photos dozens of feet away from the towers in the dust cloud.
These are not the flashes I am talking about. The ones outside the profile of the building are obviously pieces of reflective debris. The ones that seem to glitter against the exposed core seem fixed against it. It's not possible to illustrate this with stills, you have to watch closely, probably several times - I do not get the sense of any of the core flashes moving anywhere. Of course, there is a subjective element to this, but that's the impression I get.
QUOTE
Also, if the collapse set it off why didn't the impact set off the charges on the impact level?
The impact could well have set off charges.. but how would the resulting explosions have stood out from the far bigger explosion and fireball caused directly by the plane?
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Apr 4 2006, 04:20 PM)
Here is a general question regarding all of the buildings under discussion, but particularly with regard to WTC 7 for me just now --- Don't fire departments, everywhere, have some investigator(s) look through the remains for evidence of how the fire started? (Recently in a city about 100 km from here the conclusion was arson...) So did not the NYFD have someone watching the excavations of the ruins? If so, I suppose there is a report somewhere in the NYC archives.
Regarding whether or not steel was recovered from WTC 7 --- Way back was posted the claim that steel recovery was a "volunteer effort". This means it was probably not that well organized or controlled. Archeology graduate students study for at least a year regarding how to dig a site --- after all, you only get to do this once, so you had better be quite sure that everything is controlled, organized and recorded. But as steel recovery was volunteer, it is easy for me to believe that there was some confusion about just where the steel was recovered from... NIST's conclusion is finally that none was recovered from WTC 7 after some earlier confusion about the matter. Nobody's lying, just disorganized.
You bring up a good question. The WTC was a crime scene so why was the evidence destroyed and no official fire investigation required?
If it was so disorganized, why did they remove the steel (evidence) in a little over 2 weeks from WTC7? This should tell you that there was substantial pre-planning before the event. There also was no reason to remove the steel because it was not part of the search operation ( nobody died in WTC7) and the roads around the building could be used .
Regarding whether or not steel was recovered from WTC 7 --- Way back was posted the claim that steel recovery was a "volunteer effort". This means it was probably not that well organized or controlled. Archeology graduate students study for at least a year regarding how to dig a site --- after all, you only get to do this once, so you had better be quite sure that everything is controlled, organized and recorded. But as steel recovery was volunteer, it is easy for me to believe that there was some confusion about just where the steel was recovered from... NIST's conclusion is finally that none was recovered from WTC 7 after some earlier confusion about the matter. Nobody's lying, just disorganized.
You bring up a good question. The WTC was a crime scene so why was the evidence destroyed and no official fire investigation required?
If it was so disorganized, why did they remove the steel (evidence) in a little over 2 weeks from WTC7? This should tell you that there was substantial pre-planning before the event. There also was no reason to remove the steel because it was not part of the search operation ( nobody died in WTC7) and the roads around the building could be used .
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 12:51 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Apr 4 2006, 05:50 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 05:30 AM)
Sure Foxx, change the subject. You taking lessons fron ong? Next you will be starting every post with, "show a picture of an Arab boarding the planes"
I care as much about whether or not your paranoid mind suspects that I am a ( ) paid gov't obfuscating, shill. as I do about all your other paranoid personal battles.
You're all changing the subject.
#1 Free fall
If it doesn't explain that, it ain't real.
I just did adress free fall on the previous page.
yesitdid
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.
The notion of the internal structure falling away first is inconsistent with logic and the history of collapses with any structure.
So all that arithmatic is a waste. You've answered nothing.
Then you did not account for the plumes of material going upwards.
please, don't try to say "there is nothing going up and that the particulate that looks like it is going up did fall but from the tower when it was higher." I've heard that a few times.
Once the material goes up it still must fall what ever that distance is to where it was. The distances upwards of particulate must be added to the tower hieghts.
So, ..................... technically the towers fell much faster than freefall, but only because part of them went up before they went down within the total time.
Continuing, ............ this means nobody is explaining how a 1300 foot high tower free falls UNDER ANY CONDITIONS.
Hypothetically: year 2030, Historical Recreation: (use whatever core you think existed)
You are given an offer to build and demolish a tower 1,300 foot tall x 204 square, money and time are not an issue. The only criteria is that the final event must look exactly like the trade center towers on 9-11-01.
I care as much about whether or not your paranoid mind suspects that I am a (
) paid gov't obfuscating, shill. as I do about all your other paranoid personal battles. You're all changing the subject.
#1 Free fall
If it doesn't explain that, it ain't real.
I just did adress free fall on the previous page.
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.
QUOTE (->
| 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. |
yesitdid
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.
The notion of the internal structure falling away first is inconsistent with logic and the history of collapses with any structure.
So all that arithmatic is a waste. You've answered nothing.
Then you did not account for the plumes of material going upwards.
please, don't try to say "there is nothing going up and that the particulate that looks like it is going up did fall but from the tower when it was higher." I've heard that a few times.
Once the material goes up it still must fall what ever that distance is to where it was. The distances upwards of particulate must be added to the tower hieghts.
So, ..................... technically the towers fell much faster than freefall, but only because part of them went up before they went down within the total time.
Continuing, ............ this means nobody is explaining how a 1300 foot high tower free falls UNDER ANY CONDITIONS.
Hypothetically: year 2030, Historical Recreation: (use whatever core you think existed)
You are given an offer to build and demolish a tower 1,300 foot tall x 204 square, money and time are not an issue. The only criteria is that the final event must look exactly like the trade center towers on 9-11-01.
Christophera if you are not a disinformationist please post a picture of molten aluminum that resembles the molten metal newtonnjd posted:
http://www.checktheevidence.com//911/Thermite.htm
Every time good information is posted you start spamming.
http://www.checktheevidence.com//911/Thermite.htm
Every time good information is posted you start spamming.
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 4 2006, 01:11 AM)
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.
Uuuuum Metamars, You seem like one of the smarter occupants of the “clown car”, but like the others all too often you “check your critical thinking at the door” when it comes to 9/11 issues.
Do you really think posters on this and the Randi Rhodes forum are representative of the American public? What percentage of the posters in each forum do you think is afraid? ONE woman on the RR forum asked you not to cc: e-mail messages. A couple of you (Lon and frater) have revealed their true identities. Didn’t Newton just say something like “we in the clown car don’t have to be afraid of revealing our true identities”. I haven’t seen any examples of the CTists here expressing fear, can you cite one? A few people you know told you they are afraid, could this be because you know a disproportionately high numbers CTists? Just because at CTist knows some people who have a paranoid fear of their own government in no way indicates that this reflects the sentiments of the general populace. Engineers as a group are very rational people.
Bush and Co. did its best to stoke and exploit post 9-11/anthrax* fear among Americans to achieve it’s political goals but that fear of course wasn’t directed against the Federal government. IIRC Bush had the support of over 80% of the population immediately after 9/11 and that slipped to about 50% by the time of the election and now is down to around 37%. His slip seems tied to the morass in Iraq, no WMD’s, a sluggish economy etc. I have seen no signs of wide spread fear of the Government. Just about all my friends and relatives in the US have detested Bushes from day one but none of them are afraid of them.
As I pointed out a while ago many people have come forward publicly to accuse Bush of orchestrating 9/11 but only one of them seems to have suffered any adverse consequences. I’m referring to Kevin Ryan of course but he seems to have gotten fired for using UL letterhead and implying other people in the company backed his views. Do you any other examples of people who have been fired or harassed? Do you believe Jimmy Walter’s claim that he was forced into exile? IIRC he has never explained what forced him. Never the less numerous people from various professions have come forward including electrical, mechanical and aerospace engineers. Like you said there is no reason to expect (civil) engineers to be any different. Would they remain silent just to save their jobs if they knew that explosives must have been used?
Your suggestion that their families might be in danger is also paranoia taken to its extreme of all the members of the 9/11 truth movement and whistle blowers past and present have any of them ever had their families hassled?
You said you spoke to a friend of yours who is a civil engineer, what did he tell you? Didn’t you say he wasn’t afraid?
And what about all the civil engineers from overseas? I should think a French or Brazilian engineer should feel relatively safe. I spoke to a civil engineer I know here and asked him if he would be afraid to write an article suggesting the towers collapsed due to CD, if that was what he believed, and he laughed and said both ideas (CD and being afraid) were ridiculous. You could argue the CIA has long reach but what about Iranian, Cuban or (pre-invasion) Iraqi engineers would fear hold them back too?. What about Islamic engineers from other counties even if they were afraid might not they take a chance to vindicate their religion.
I’m sorry but the “fear factor” is a dumb reality show not a valid excuse for not being able to find any experts to back your theories. Nor can you reasonably argue that most civil engineers are probably unaware of the CD theory since they have been widely reported in the media. Nor is it likely that they don’t know about the collapse theory or what’s in the NIST and ASCE/FEMA reports 9/11 was one of the most important events of the last 100 years and the collapse of the towers the biggest structural failure in history. It’s fair to assume a good number of civil engineers and architects read the reports and various papers about them.
As for the survey I’m starting to warm to the idea because I think it will show that 100% of structural engineers think your theories are poppycock. Maybe you can get st/911 to sponsor it and Jimmy Walter to underwrite it. Try not to make it a “push poll” you could run the questions by some of the skeptics here or elsewhere for comment. I doubt Fetzer would go for the idea because he knows the outcome is likely to be embarrassing for your side
CS, I know you are not THAT ignorant of what the group is doing.
CS, I know you are not THAT ignorant of what the group is doing.
Your character assassination in the place reason tells me all I need to know.
And you weren't engaging in the same thing with your petty twist on the scholars title?
CS, I know you are not THAT ignorant of what the group is doing.
What's more important is knowing what they AREN'T doing. I and others have already said what it was.
Enlighten me?
CS, I know you are not THAT ignorant of what the group is doing.
CS, I know you are not THAT ignorant of what the group is doing.
Your character assassination in the place reason tells me all I need to know.
And you weren't engaging in the same thing with your pitiful twist on the scholars title?
That wasn't pointed at you. That's pointed toward everyone else on this thread who finds the need to attack lik metamars. I can do the same. But then you attacked me and there you have it.
CS, I know you are not THAT ignorant of what the group is doing.
I and others have already said what it was.
I thought you would say that. You'll have to go back and read the quotes. I'm not your personal recorder.
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.
Uuuuum Metamars, You seem like one of the smarter occupants of the “clown car”, but like the others all too often you “check your critical thinking at the door” when it comes to 9/11 issues.
Do you really think posters on this and the Randi Rhodes forum are representative of the American public? What percentage of the posters in each forum do you think is afraid? ONE woman on the RR forum asked you not to cc: e-mail messages. A couple of you (Lon and frater) have revealed their true identities. Didn’t Newton just say something like “we in the clown car don’t have to be afraid of revealing our true identities”. I haven’t seen any examples of the CTists here expressing fear, can you cite one? A few people you know told you they are afraid, could this be because you know a disproportionately high numbers CTists? Just because at CTist knows some people who have a paranoid fear of their own government in no way indicates that this reflects the sentiments of the general populace. Engineers as a group are very rational people.
Bush and Co. did its best to stoke and exploit post 9-11/anthrax* fear among Americans to achieve it’s political goals but that fear of course wasn’t directed against the Federal government. IIRC Bush had the support of over 80% of the population immediately after 9/11 and that slipped to about 50% by the time of the election and now is down to around 37%. His slip seems tied to the morass in Iraq, no WMD’s, a sluggish economy etc. I have seen no signs of wide spread fear of the Government. Just about all my friends and relatives in the US have detested Bushes from day one but none of them are afraid of them.
As I pointed out a while ago many people have come forward publicly to accuse Bush of orchestrating 9/11 but only one of them seems to have suffered any adverse consequences. I’m referring to Kevin Ryan of course but he seems to have gotten fired for using UL letterhead and implying other people in the company backed his views. Do you any other examples of people who have been fired or harassed? Do you believe Jimmy Walter’s claim that he was forced into exile? IIRC he has never explained what forced him. Never the less numerous people from various professions have come forward including electrical, mechanical and aerospace engineers. Like you said there is no reason to expect (civil) engineers to be any different. Would they remain silent just to save their jobs if they knew that explosives must have been used?
Your suggestion that their families might be in danger is also paranoia taken to its extreme of all the members of the 9/11 truth movement and whistle blowers past and present have any of them ever had their families hassled?
You said you spoke to a friend of yours who is a civil engineer, what did he tell you? Didn’t you say he wasn’t afraid?
And what about all the civil engineers from overseas? I should think a French or Brazilian engineer should feel relatively safe. I spoke to a civil engineer I know here and asked him if he would be afraid to write an article suggesting the towers collapsed due to CD, if that was what he believed, and he laughed and said both ideas (CD and being afraid) were ridiculous. You could argue the CIA has long reach but what about Iranian, Cuban or (pre-invasion) Iraqi engineers would fear hold them back too?. What about Islamic engineers from other counties even if they were afraid might not they take a chance to vindicate their religion.
I’m sorry but the “fear factor” is a dumb reality show not a valid excuse for not being able to find any experts to back your theories. Nor can you reasonably argue that most civil engineers are probably unaware of the CD theory since they have been widely reported in the media. Nor is it likely that they don’t know about the collapse theory or what’s in the NIST and ASCE/FEMA reports 9/11 was one of the most important events of the last 100 years and the collapse of the towers the biggest structural failure in history. It’s fair to assume a good number of civil engineers and architects read the reports and various papers about them.
As for the survey I’m starting to warm to the idea because I think it will show that 100% of structural engineers think your theories are poppycock. Maybe you can get st/911 to sponsor it and Jimmy Walter to underwrite it. Try not to make it a “push poll” you could run the questions by some of the skeptics here or elsewhere for comment. I doubt Fetzer would go for the idea because he knows the outcome is likely to be embarrassing for your side
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 5 2006, 02:10 AM)
Do you really think posters on this and the Randi Rhodes forum are representative of the American public? What percentage of the posters in each forum do you think is afraid? ONE woman on the RR forum asked you not to cc: e-mail messages. A couple of you (Lou and frater) have revealed their true identities. Didn’t Newton just say something like “we in the clown car don’t have to be afraid of revealing our true identities”. I haven’t seen any examples of the CTists here expressing fear, can you cite one? A few people you know told you they are afraid, could this be because you know a disproportionately high numbers CTists? Just because at CTist knows some people who have a paranoid fear of their own government in no way indicates that this reflects the sentiments of the general populace. Engineers as a group are very rational people.
I think you are referring to me when you say "Lou", would appreciate it if you would correct that. If I was still working at the labs (Sandia National Lab) and wanted to hold on to my job there is no way I could come out publicly with any doubts about 911. I would certainly have lost my security clearance and likely my job because of it. I left Sandia about 6 months before I got curious about 911. Engineers as a group are some of the most risk and conflict averse people I know. They also are not entirely rational outside the bounds of their expertise and occasionally inside it when politics and turf become dominant.
I am not arguing too strenuously for the fear factor but I believe there are those who just would not approach the issue for various reasons, fear of losing a government related job being one of them.
I think you are referring to me when you say "Lou", would appreciate it if you would correct that. If I was still working at the labs (Sandia National Lab) and wanted to hold on to my job there is no way I could come out publicly with any doubts about 911. I would certainly have lost my security clearance and likely my job because of it. I left Sandia about 6 months before I got curious about 911. Engineers as a group are some of the most risk and conflict averse people I know. They also are not entirely rational outside the bounds of their expertise and occasionally inside it when politics and turf become dominant.
I am not arguing too strenuously for the fear factor but I believe there are those who just would not approach the issue for various reasons, fear of losing a government related job being one of them.
Yeap! "Scholars for 911 excuse".
How did Doug Tompson of Capitol Hill Blue respnd to criticism of his 9/11 views:
One final, funny footnote on censorship.
A 20-year US veteran---"Old Ranger"--informed me via email that he too had been booted off the Capitol Hill Blue forum the day before me. Apparently banned for his contrary opinions and daring to air them. "I never cursed nor attacked, (don't necessarily believe in it unless totally necessary) & I find that I cannot post anymore since Black Friday."
That was the day scores of us disagreed with "free speech" Thompson's government version of 911. More than a few dissenters got their dissenting asses banned.
I suppose I should not have called the Thompson an idiot. But I found his premise--that a highly secure, 47-story steel skyscraper, containing US government offices of the Secret Service, CIA, and SEC files and gold bullion by the ton, would collapse suddenly due to a couple of minor fires-as ludicrous as a flat earth, or the sun circling the moon. Galileo and Thoreau would have understood.
http://www.rense.com/general70/censorshipsocrates.htm
One final, funny footnote on censorship.
A 20-year US veteran---"Old Ranger"--informed me via email that he too had been booted off the Capitol Hill Blue forum the day before me. Apparently banned for his contrary opinions and daring to air them. "I never cursed nor attacked, (don't necessarily believe in it unless totally necessary) & I find that I cannot post anymore since Black Friday."
That was the day scores of us disagreed with "free speech" Thompson's government version of 911. More than a few dissenters got their dissenting asses banned.
I suppose I should not have called the Thompson an idiot. But I found his premise--that a highly secure, 47-story steel skyscraper, containing US government offices of the Secret Service, CIA, and SEC files and gold bullion by the ton, would collapse suddenly due to a couple of minor fires-as ludicrous as a flat earth, or the sun circling the moon. Galileo and Thoreau would have understood.
http://www.rense.com/general70/censorshipsocrates.htm
reasonwhy - I tried to sign up for the CHB forum after Thompson's 9/11 rant, and either they have the slowest approval speed of any forum I've tried to join, or they're not going to approve me. If they're not going to approve me, I have to wonder why.
Well, that doesn't really mean much coming from someone who would sacrifice their own children if it meant uncovering a government conspiracy..
QUOTE
Yeap! "Scholars for 911 excuse".
Well, that doesn't really mean much coming from someone who would sacrifice their own children if it meant uncovering a government conspiracy..
What's really funny are the idiots who think a 47 story steel building can get hit by a 110 story steel building and not have any damage except a few fires. Especially after the fireman on the ground and who were there KNEW the building was in trouble. Then there are the photos of the south side of building 7 completely covered in smoke. Just a few fires covered the back of a 47 story building... 
Heh! Doesn't matter that there is a video of the fireman saying the building was to far gone. Doesn't matter that there was no water to fight the fire. Doesn't matter how many conspiracy site lies are exposed. These idiots see one side of the building from a computer screen hundreds of miles away and get an idea planted in their head by another crack head who's only expertize in building construction is an internet connection and a paypal account. HEHEHE, you gotta laugh.
Heh! Doesn't matter that there is a video of the fireman saying the building was to far gone. Doesn't matter that there was no water to fight the fire. Doesn't matter how many conspiracy site lies are exposed. These idiots see one side of the building from a computer screen hundreds of miles away and get an idea planted in their head by another crack head who's only expertize in building construction is an internet connection and a paypal account. HEHEHE, you gotta laugh.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 10:48 PM)
reasonwhy - I tried to sign up for the CHB forum after Thompson's 9/11 rant, and either they have the slowest approval speed of any forum I've tried to join, or they're not going to approve me. If they're not going to approve me, I have to wonder why.
Well, that doesn't really mean much coming from someone who would sacrifice their own children if it meant uncovering a government conspiracy..
This doesn't mean much coming from a wuss who wouldn't sacrifice their family for hundreds of thousands of other families.
Give me liberty or give me DEATH!
What are you scholars going to do with your scholarly work? Hide it under your bed?
Your character assassination in the place reason tells me all I need to know.
QUOTE
Yeap! "Scholars for 911 excuse".
Well, that doesn't really mean much coming from someone who would sacrifice their own children if it meant uncovering a government conspiracy..
This doesn't mean much coming from a wuss who wouldn't sacrifice their family for hundreds of thousands of other families.
Give me liberty or give me DEATH!
What are you scholars going to do with your scholarly work? Hide it under your bed?
Your character assassination in the place reason tells me all I need to know.
QUOTE
What are you scholars going to do with your scholarly work? Hide it under your bed?
CS, I know you are not THAT ignorant of what the group is doing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What are you scholars going to do with your scholarly work? Hide it under your bed? |
CS, I know you are not THAT ignorant of what the group is doing.
Your character assassination in the place reason tells me all I need to know.
And you weren't engaging in the same thing with your petty twist on the scholars title?
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 11:00 PM)
QUOTE
What are you scholars going to do with your scholarly work? Hide it under your bed?
CS, I know you are not THAT ignorant of what the group is doing.
What's more important is knowing what they AREN'T doing. I and others have already said what it was.
QUOTE
What's more important is knowing what they AREN'T doing.
Enlighten me?
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 11:00 PM)
QUOTE
What are you scholars going to do with your scholarly work? Hide it under your bed?
CS, I know you are not THAT ignorant of what the group is doing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What are you scholars going to do with your scholarly work? Hide it under your bed? |
CS, I know you are not THAT ignorant of what the group is doing.
Your character assassination in the place reason tells me all I need to know.
And you weren't engaging in the same thing with your pitiful twist on the scholars title?
That wasn't pointed at you. That's pointed toward everyone else on this thread who finds the need to attack lik metamars. I can do the same. But then you attacked me and there you have it.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 5 2006, 03:48 AM)
reasonwhy - I tried to sign up for the CHB forum after Thompson's 9/11 rant, and either they have the slowest approval speed of any forum I've tried to join, or they're not going to approve me. If they're not going to approve me, I have to wonder why.
Well, that doesn't really mean much coming from someone who would sacrifice their own children if it meant uncovering a government conspiracy..
What's the CHB forum?
QUOTE
Yeap! "Scholars for 911 excuse".
Well, that doesn't really mean much coming from someone who would sacrifice their own children if it meant uncovering a government conspiracy..
What's the CHB forum?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 4 2006, 11:03 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 11:00 PM)
QUOTE
What are you scholars going to do with your scholarly work? Hide it under your bed?
CS, I know you are not THAT ignorant of what the group is doing.
I and others have already said what it was.
I thought you would say that. You'll have to go back and read the quotes. I'm not your personal recorder.
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 4 2006, 11:08 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 5 2006, 03:48 AM)
reasonwhy - I tried to sign up for the CHB forum after Thompson's 9/11 rant, and either they have the slowest approval speed of any forum I've tried to join, or they're not going to approve me. If they're not going to approve me, I have to wonder why.
Well, that doesn't really mean much coming from someone who would sacrifice their own children if it meant uncovering a government conspiracy..
What's the CHB forum?
I believe hes talking about www.capitolhillblue.com
QUOTE
Yeap! "Scholars for 911 excuse".
Well, that doesn't really mean much coming from someone who would sacrifice their own children if it meant uncovering a government conspiracy..
What's the CHB forum?
I believe hes talking about www.capitolhillblue.com
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 5 2006, 04:17 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 4 2006, 11:08 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 5 2006, 03:48 AM)
reasonwhy - I tried to sign up for the CHB forum after Thompson's 9/11 rant, and either they have the slowest approval speed of any forum I've tried to join, or they're not going to approve me. If they're not going to approve me, I have to wonder why.
Well, that doesn't really mean much coming from someone who would sacrifice their own children if it meant uncovering a government conspiracy..
What's the CHB forum?
I believe hes talking about www.capitolhillblue.com
Ah, I read some of that stuff. The Charlie Sheen article.
Speaking of Thompson's is Paul Thompson MIHOP or LIHOP?
QUOTE
Yeap! "Scholars for 911 excuse".
Well, that doesn't really mean much coming from someone who would sacrifice their own children if it meant uncovering a government conspiracy..
What's the CHB forum?
I believe hes talking about www.capitolhillblue.com
Ah, I read some of that stuff. The Charlie Sheen article.
Speaking of Thompson's is Paul Thompson MIHOP or LIHOP?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 01:17 AM)
Christophera if you are not a disinformationist please post a picture of molten aluminum that resembles the molten metal newtonnjd posted:
http://www.checktheevidence.com//911/Thermite.htm
Every time good information is posted you start spamming.
How you can pretend to be intelligent rational person posting such ambiguous direction and unfounded conditional accusation?
If I have to explain the logic of the above, you should post a lot less and read much more.
http://www.checktheevidence.com//911/Thermite.htm
Every time good information is posted you start spamming.
How you can pretend to be intelligent rational person posting such ambiguous direction and unfounded conditional accusation?
If I have to explain the logic of the above, you should post a lot less and read much more.
QUOTE (Christophera+Apr 4 2006, 08:32 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 01:17 AM)
Christophera if you are not a disinformationist please post a picture of molten aluminum that resembles the molten metal newtonnjd posted:
http://www.checktheevidence.com//911/Thermite.htm
Every time good information is posted you start spamming.
How you can pretend to be intelligent rational person posting such ambiguous direction and unfounded conditional accusation?
If I have to explain the logic of the above, you should post a lot less and read much more.
You’re the one that keeps saying it has to be aluminum and could not be steel. Prove it, show molten aluminum that resembles the metal in the video.
Do I need to refresh your memory with your previous BS?
I've not seen molten steel flowing from the tower. I did see aluminum. Steel sparks intensly if it touches things while falling. It is also basically white in color turning red as it cools.
The video and quote above prove you do not know anything about molten metal. Please go find another forum to spam.
http://www.checktheevidence.com//911/Thermite.htm
Every time good information is posted you start spamming.
How you can pretend to be intelligent rational person posting such ambiguous direction and unfounded conditional accusation?
If I have to explain the logic of the above, you should post a lot less and read much more.
You’re the one that keeps saying it has to be aluminum and could not be steel. Prove it, show molten aluminum that resembles the metal in the video.
Do I need to refresh your memory with your previous BS?
QUOTE ( Christophera+Apr 4 2006, 10:24 AM)
I've not seen molten steel flowing from the tower. I did see aluminum. Steel sparks intensly if it touches things while falling. It is also basically white in color turning red as it cools.
The video and quote above prove you do not know anything about molten metal. Please go find another forum to spam.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 04:46 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Apr 4 2006, 08:32 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 01:17 AM)
Christophera if you are not a disinformationist please post a picture of molten aluminum that resembles the molten metal newtonnjd posted:
http://www.checktheevidence.com//911/Thermite.htm
Every time good information is posted you start spamming.
How you can pretend to be intelligent rational person posting such ambiguous direction and unfounded conditional accusation?
If I have to explain the logic of the above, you should post a lot less and read much more.
You’re the one that keeps saying it has to be aluminum and could not be steel. Prove it, show molten aluminum that resembles the metal in the video.
Do I need to refresh your memory with your previous BS?
If you think such things are important, you are to busy to be effective. If you do not know what molten steel looks like, you shouldn't be posting. You should be reading like yessie.
You couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag. FRAUD.
What is important is explaining what happened, how our 3,000 brothers and sisters were killed. How was America fooled exactly. Exactly what happened?
If your kind are tolerated here, encouraged and engaged. Most of this forum is a FRAUD.
Tell me how to make free fall and total pulverization. Then you are working to do as you say you are. Until then, you are just using poorly chosen words and methods to create a dissmissal of information that actually explains events and evidence.
The impact/fire floors suffered the damage that lead to the initial collapse. It has been shown that the energy that was available to have the upper section impact the next lower floor was 31 times the design load(for the north tower). When a load that is 31 times what a structure is designed to handle is caused to suddenly impact that structure it will cause a virtually immediate failure.
YID, I think you are guilty of you're first statement, don't you think?
No
How is it different?
Let me rephrase it then. Foxx does not believe for a minute that there was ever enough heat to cause the loacl collapse nor does he believe that a local collapse would cause more than the collapse of a few more levels.
Anytime that I have used approximation I believe that I have been careful to say so. I use terms such as 'probable' and 'possible'.
You and others on the other hand often state 'it isn't possible' while newtonnjd just said he accepts a possiblity and tried to state that most CD believers accept that possibility.
'taint true!
The quote above concerning the 31 times load factor is data from Bazant-Zhou and you know it. It is clear in their paper and I have on many occasions repeated such, that theirs is an approximation but that they consider the fact that this is an order of magnitude greater to cover the problems associated with approximations.
Again, do you have to hone this skill of misquote and misrepresentation or does it come naturally to you?
emphasis mine
Beyond a few millimeters, BZ's "elastic dynamic analysis" has little to do with physical reality. Whether intentional or not, it's propaganda. At least, this is what the mathematics tells me, and I've seen nobody refute me.
Also, even if it's true that they hedged their bets, so to speak, by "an order of magnitude" cushion, why should anybody accept that? Even multiple orders of magnitude "cushion" (i.e., uncertainty) are OK for some arguments, but if you do that for a 30x overload, and it's really only a 3x overload, should the building still collapse?
Or, are you claiming that their "elastic dynamic analysis" could "really" have pointed to an overload as high as 310x???
What are you claiming?
For entertainment purposes, why don't you calculate how many millimeters you need to depress the WTC/BZ "spring", before it can propel the top of the WTC into orbit? My guess is you can easily exceed escape velocity. How seriously should we take this "approximation"?
http://www.checktheevidence.com//911/Thermite.htm
Every time good information is posted you start spamming.
How you can pretend to be intelligent rational person posting such ambiguous direction and unfounded conditional accusation?
If I have to explain the logic of the above, you should post a lot less and read much more.
You’re the one that keeps saying it has to be aluminum and could not be steel. Prove it, show molten aluminum that resembles the metal in the video.
Do I need to refresh your memory with your previous BS?
If you think such things are important, you are to busy to be effective. If you do not know what molten steel looks like, you shouldn't be posting. You should be reading like yessie.
You couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag. FRAUD.
What is important is explaining what happened, how our 3,000 brothers and sisters were killed. How was America fooled exactly. Exactly what happened?
If your kind are tolerated here, encouraged and engaged. Most of this forum is a FRAUD.
Tell me how to make free fall and total pulverization. Then you are working to do as you say you are. Until then, you are just using poorly chosen words and methods to create a dissmissal of information that actually explains events and evidence.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 4 2006, 05:52 AM)
clowns rock the world.
beep, toot, flap
foxx, you're right on the money.
metamars, you're too trusting.
yesitdid, you're a much better 'debater' than the puppet brigade.
scott, seemingly sincere. time will tell.
newtonnjd, gordon, jane doe, jones, sheen, asner, frater, steve jackson......zebuhr... you are all heros. champions of truth.
are we "clowns", the 'new illuminati', enlightened to the activities of the 'black magicians' who run the world??
is this kind of crap, 'the great work', or 'the big secret at the top of the pyramid of power'? that EVERYTHING is filtered into compartments, making, "The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth, So Help Me God" a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY! and actual Physical Reality a Construct of Geobbels and Rove?
URL The Art Of Evil /URL
do not give in to fear, or 'it' will ONLY GET WORSE.
emphasis mine
Well, I suppose that beats being called paranoid delusional.
BTW, I call the window seat on the clown car. Or, if there's a rumble seat, then I call that.
beep, toot, flap
foxx, you're right on the money.
metamars, you're too trusting.
yesitdid, you're a much better 'debater' than the puppet brigade.
scott, seemingly sincere. time will tell.
newtonnjd, gordon, jane doe, jones, sheen, asner, frater, steve jackson......zebuhr... you are all heros. champions of truth.
are we "clowns", the 'new illuminati', enlightened to the activities of the 'black magicians' who run the world??
is this kind of crap, 'the great work', or 'the big secret at the top of the pyramid of power'? that EVERYTHING is filtered into compartments, making, "The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth, So Help Me God" a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY! and actual Physical Reality a Construct of Geobbels and Rove?
URL The Art Of Evil /URL
do not give in to fear, or 'it' will ONLY GET WORSE.
emphasis mine
Well, I suppose that beats being called paranoid delusional.
BTW, I call the window seat on the clown car. Or, if there's a rumble seat, then I call that.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 12:52 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 08:41 AM)
QUOTE
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)
Mini ProfilePM
Top
Mini ProfilePM
Top
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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) Mini ProfilePM Top |
The impact/fire floors suffered the damage that lead to the initial collapse. It has been shown that the energy that was available to have the upper section impact the next lower floor was 31 times the design load(for the north tower). When a load that is 31 times what a structure is designed to handle is caused to suddenly impact that structure it will cause a virtually immediate failure.
YID, I think you are guilty of you're first statement, don't you think?
No
How is it different?
Let me rephrase it then. Foxx does not believe for a minute that there was ever enough heat to cause the loacl collapse nor does he believe that a local collapse would cause more than the collapse of a few more levels.
Anytime that I have used approximation I believe that I have been careful to say so. I use terms such as 'probable' and 'possible'.
You and others on the other hand often state 'it isn't possible' while newtonnjd just said he accepts a possiblity and tried to state that most CD believers accept that possibility.
'taint true!
The quote above concerning the 31 times load factor is data from Bazant-Zhou and you know it. It is clear in their paper and I have on many occasions repeated such, that theirs is an approximation but that they consider the fact that this is an order of magnitude greater to cover the problems associated with approximations.
Again, do you have to hone this skill of misquote and misrepresentation or does it come naturally to you?
emphasis mine
Beyond a few millimeters, BZ's "elastic dynamic analysis" has little to do with physical reality. Whether intentional or not, it's propaganda. At least, this is what the mathematics tells me, and I've seen nobody refute me.
Also, even if it's true that they hedged their bets, so to speak, by "an order of magnitude" cushion, why should anybody accept that? Even multiple orders of magnitude "cushion" (i.e., uncertainty) are OK for some arguments, but if you do that for a 30x overload, and it's really only a 3x overload, should the building still collapse?
Or, are you claiming that their "elastic dynamic analysis" could "really" have pointed to an overload as high as 310x???
What are you claiming?
For entertainment purposes, why don't you calculate how many millimeters you need to depress the WTC/BZ "spring", before it can propel the top of the WTC into orbit? My guess is you can easily exceed escape velocity. How seriously should we take this "approximation"?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 04:46 AM)
You’re the one that keeps saying it has to be aluminum and could not be steel. Prove it, show molten aluminum that resembles the metal in the video.
Why would I try to prove it is aluminum when I think it might actually be water 'cause it looks like water too?
The important thisng is I know it is not steel and it has nothing to do with free fall. If you don't, then get educated.
Meanwhile the issue of free fall is totally neglected, and that was the MAJOR event of the day so you are really a distraction when insisting that molten aluminum is an issue.
Of course all discussion that doesn't work towards explaining the dominant event of the day is a distraction.
Meaning this image,
shows us something that is not supposed to be there and DOES NOT show us what should be there. And what it shows can be instantly fractured to fall freely by a fairly small amount of explosives that are place at the center.
That is concrete as sure as we lost 3,000 Americans on that f**ked up Tuesday morning.
Why would I try to prove it is aluminum when I think it might actually be water 'cause it looks like water too?
The important thisng is I know it is not steel and it has nothing to do with free fall. If you don't, then get educated.
Meanwhile the issue of free fall is totally neglected, and that was the MAJOR event of the day so you are really a distraction when insisting that molten aluminum is an issue.
Of course all discussion that doesn't work towards explaining the dominant event of the day is a distraction.
Meaning this image,
shows us something that is not supposed to be there and DOES NOT show us what should be there. And what it shows can be instantly fractured to fall freely by a fairly small amount of explosives that are place at the center.
That is concrete as sure as we lost 3,000 Americans on that f**ked up Tuesday morning.
QUOTE (Christophera+Apr 4 2006, 09:35 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 04:46 AM)
You’re the one that keeps saying it has to be aluminum and could not be steel. Prove it, show molten aluminum that resembles the metal in the video.
Why would I try to prove it is aluminum when I think it might actually be water 'cause it looks like water too?
You are worse then a shill. I apologize to everyone else for spamming the thread. This is what Christopher claims looks like molten water:
.jpg)
.jpg)
Why would I try to prove it is aluminum when I think it might actually be water 'cause it looks like water too?
You are worse then a shill. I apologize to everyone else for spamming the thread. This is what Christopher claims looks like molten water:
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 05:53 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Apr 4 2006, 09:35 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 04:46 AM)
You’re the one that keeps saying it has to be aluminum and could not be steel. Prove it, show molten aluminum that resembles the metal in the video.
Why would I try to prove it is aluminum when I think it might actually be water 'cause it looks like water too?
You are worse then a shill. I apologize to everyone else for spamming the thread. This is what Christopher claims looks like molten water:
Now that you've posted the image, (try to always do that, I do) I would agree, it could even be molten steel, it is very bright. If those f**ks are making you feel guilty for doing what they label spam, then they have a problem.
Here is aluminum.
but it still doesn't explain free fall and total pulverization which are not actually arguable in any way.
They are commonly known facts.
If your information is to be useful you need to determine which tower it is on and what face and the elevation. Then your information might provide some small clue as to why a tower fell a certain way or something.
I saw another video that showed what could be water, not the same location tho.
Why would I try to prove it is aluminum when I think it might actually be water 'cause it looks like water too?
You are worse then a shill. I apologize to everyone else for spamming the thread. This is what Christopher claims looks like molten water:
Now that you've posted the image, (try to always do that, I do) I would agree, it could even be molten steel, it is very bright. If those f**ks are making you feel guilty for doing what they label spam, then they have a problem.
Here is aluminum.
but it still doesn't explain free fall and total pulverization which are not actually arguable in any way.
They are commonly known facts.
If your information is to be useful you need to determine which tower it is on and what face and the elevation. Then your information might provide some small clue as to why a tower fell a certain way or something.
I saw another video that showed what could be water, not the same location tho.
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Apr 5 2006, 02:44 AM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 5 2006, 02:10 AM)
Do you really think posters on this and the Randi Rhodes forum are representative of the American public? What percentage of the posters in each forum do you think is afraid? ONE woman on the RR forum asked you not to cc: e-mail messages. A couple of you (Lou and frater) have revealed their true identities. Didn’t Newton just say something like “we in the clown car don’t have to be afraid of revealing our true identities”. I haven’t seen any examples of the CTists here expressing fear, can you cite one? A few people you know told you they are afraid, could this be because you know a disproportionately high numbers CTists? Just because at CTist knows some people who have a paranoid fear of their own government in no way indicates that this reflects the sentiments of the general populace. Engineers as a group are very rational people.
I think you are referring to me when you say "Lou", would appreciate it if you would correct that. If I was still working at the labs (Sandia National Lab) and wanted to hold on to my job there is no way I could come out publicly with any doubts about 911. I would certainly have lost my security clearance and likely my job because of it. I left Sandia about 6 months before I got curious about 911. Engineers as a group are some of the most risk and conflict averse people I know. They also are not entirely rational outside the bounds of their expertise and occasionally inside it when politics and turf become dominant.
I am not arguing too strenuously for the fear factor but I believe there are those who just would not approach the issue for various reasons, fear of losing a government related job being one of them.
I've also read that mathematicians as a group shy away from conflict, though I can't remember where I read that. That seems intutively correct because I once - and only once - observed a mathematician tear into a visiting mathematician giving a seminar, and I was shocked.
In my view, the rationality of human beings, in general, is highly overated. With science, logic, and reason, we can, to some extent, overcome some of our innate irrationality, but not all of it. I believe everybody is fundamentally irrational, and made this "discovery" when I was a very young child.
I was primarily referring to "primal" fear - i.e., the fear of getting whacked or ending up in Guantanamo. In point of fact, fear of losing one's job can also be significant, as you point out.
BTW, I do think the fear (so far, anyway) is incommensurate with the real risk. E.g., the woman who asked to be removed from my email list faced absolutely no risk, IMO, since she didn't have a politically active bone in her body.
However, people behave ito their perceptions of reality, so my opinion of danger to her is completely irrelevant.
If I changed my name to lenbrazil, though, I guess I'd have to ignore this psychological fact, and just dismiss all the fraidy cats as rare paranoid delusionals.
Somewhat related: Pre 911, Noam Chomsky had pointed out that Americans have a much higher fear of terrorism than Europeans, even though we have far less of it.
I think you are referring to me when you say "Lou", would appreciate it if you would correct that. If I was still working at the labs (Sandia National Lab) and wanted to hold on to my job there is no way I could come out publicly with any doubts about 911. I would certainly have lost my security clearance and likely my job because of it. I left Sandia about 6 months before I got curious about 911. Engineers as a group are some of the most risk and conflict averse people I know. They also are not entirely rational outside the bounds of their expertise and occasionally inside it when politics and turf become dominant.
I am not arguing too strenuously for the fear factor but I believe there are those who just would not approach the issue for various reasons, fear of losing a government related job being one of them.
I've also read that mathematicians as a group shy away from conflict, though I can't remember where I read that. That seems intutively correct because I once - and only once - observed a mathematician tear into a visiting mathematician giving a seminar, and I was shocked.
In my view, the rationality of human beings, in general, is highly overated. With science, logic, and reason, we can, to some extent, overcome some of our innate irrationality, but not all of it. I believe everybody is fundamentally irrational, and made this "discovery" when I was a very young child.
I was primarily referring to "primal" fear - i.e., the fear of getting whacked or ending up in Guantanamo. In point of fact, fear of losing one's job can also be significant, as you point out.
BTW, I do think the fear (so far, anyway) is incommensurate with the real risk. E.g., the woman who asked to be removed from my email list faced absolutely no risk, IMO, since she didn't have a politically active bone in her body.
However, people behave ito their perceptions of reality, so my opinion of danger to her is completely irrelevant.
If I changed my name to lenbrazil, though, I guess I'd have to ignore this psychological fact, and just dismiss all the fraidy cats as rare paranoid delusionals.
Somewhat related: Pre 911, Noam Chomsky had pointed out that Americans have a much higher fear of terrorism than Europeans, even though we have far less of it.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 5 2006, 02:10 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 4 2006, 01:11 AM)
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.
Uuuuum Metamars, You seem like one of the smarter occupants of the “clown car”, but like the others all too often you “check your critical thinking at the door” when it comes to 9/11 issues.
Do you really think posters on this and the Randi Rhodes forum are representative of the American public? What percentage of the posters in each forum do you think is afraid? ONE woman on the RR forum asked you not to cc: e-mail messages. A couple of you (Lou and frater) have revealed their true identities. Didn’t Newton just say something like “we in the clown car don’t have to be afraid of revealing our true identities”. I haven’t seen any examples of the CTists here expressing fear, can you cite one? A few people you know told you they are afraid, could this be because you know a disproportionately high numbers CTists? Just because at CTist knows some people who have a paranoid fear of their own government in no way indicates that this reflects the sentiments of the general populace. Engineers as a group are very rational people.
Bush and Co. did its best to stoke and exploit post 9-11/anthrax* fear among Americans to achieve it’s political goals but that fear of course wasn’t directed against the Federal government. IIRC Bush had the support of over 80% of the population immediately after 9/11 and that slipped to about 50% by the time of the election and now is down to around 37%. His slip seems tied to the morass in Iraq, no WMD’s, a sluggish economy etc. I have seen no signs of wide spread fear of the Government. Just about all my friends and relatives in the US have detested Bushes from day one but none of them are afraid of them.
As I pointed out a while ago many people have come forward publicly to accuse Bush of orchestrating 9/11 but only one of them seems to have suffered any adverse consequences. I’m referring to Kevin Ryan of course but he seems to have gotten fired for using UL letterhead and implying other people in the company backed his views. Do you any other examples of people who have been fired or harassed? Do you believe Jimmy Walter’s claim that he was forced into exile? IIRC he has never explained what forced him. Never the less numerous people from various professions have come forward including electrical, mechanical and aerospace engineers. Like you said there is no reason to expect (civil) engineers to be any different. Would they remain silent just to save their jobs if they knew that explosives must have been used?
Your suggestion that their families might be in danger is also paranoia taken to its extreme of all the members of the 9/11 truth movement and whistle blowers past and present have any of them ever had their families hassled?
You said you spoke to a friend of yours who is a civil engineer, what did he tell you? Didn’t you say he wasn’t afraid?
And what about all the civil engineers from overseas? I should think a French or Brazilian engineer should feel relatively safe. I spoke to a civil engineer I know here and asked him if he would be afraid to write an article suggesting the towers collapsed due to CD, if that was what he believed, and he laughed and said both ideas (CD and being afraid) were ridiculous. You could argue the CIA has long reach but what about Iranian, Cuban or (pre-invasion) Iraqi engineers would fear hold them back too?. What about Islamic engineers from other counties even if they were afraid might not they take a chance to vindicate their religion.
I’m sorry but the “fear factor” is a dumb reality show not a valid excuse for not being able to find any experts to back your theories. Nor can you reasonably argue that most civil engineers are probably unaware of the CD theory since they have been widely reported in the media. Nor is it likely that they don’t know about the collapse theory or what’s in the NIST and ASCE/FEMA reports 9/11 was one of the most important events of the last 100 years and the collapse of the towers the biggest structural failure in history. It’s fair to assume a good number of civil engineers and architects read the reports and various papers about them.
As for the survey I’m starting to warm to the idea because I think it will show that 100% of structural engineers think your theories are poppycock. Maybe you can get st/911 to sponsor it and Jimmy Walter to underwrite it. Try not to make it a “push poll” you could run the questions by some of the skeptics here or elsewhere for comment. I doubt Fetzer would go for the idea because he knows the outcome is likely to be embarrassing for your side
For now, I'll say this: I've talked to 3 Ph.D. techy type re 911 collapses, though not at great length with any of them, and only 1 expressed any fear. As I've pointed out, this guy did not believe that the buildings were demoed, though we didn't have time to get into the best evidence. Yet he was still afraid.*
The other two (one an old friend of mine, who works for the Federal gov't.), believe the government Fairy Tales. Why, then, would they go public and pretend otherwise? And, if they have no intention of pointing an accusatory finger at Uncles Sam, why should they fear getting whacked, imprisoned, or losing their jobs for something they have no intention of doing?
As I've stated before, IMO, I don't believe that the overwhelming majority of civil and construction engineers are familiar with the NIST report OR the most compelling evidence re 911. It's one thing to hear that there's a "conspiracy theory" that the buildings were demoed, another to look at all the evidence. You do recall, don't you, that scientific arguments, unlike political arguments, are properly settled on the basis of the best evidence? Right?
Thus, the survey needs to assess knowledge of both these areas. Surveys of people who are ignorant on the issues is of little value.
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.
Uuuuum Metamars, You seem like one of the smarter occupants of the “clown car”, but like the others all too often you “check your critical thinking at the door” when it comes to 9/11 issues.
Do you really think posters on this and the Randi Rhodes forum are representative of the American public? What percentage of the posters in each forum do you think is afraid? ONE woman on the RR forum asked you not to cc: e-mail messages. A couple of you (Lou and frater) have revealed their true identities. Didn’t Newton just say something like “we in the clown car don’t have to be afraid of revealing our true identities”. I haven’t seen any examples of the CTists here expressing fear, can you cite one? A few people you know told you they are afraid, could this be because you know a disproportionately high numbers CTists? Just because at CTist knows some people who have a paranoid fear of their own government in no way indicates that this reflects the sentiments of the general populace. Engineers as a group are very rational people.
Bush and Co. did its best to stoke and exploit post 9-11/anthrax* fear among Americans to achieve it’s political goals but that fear of course wasn’t directed against the Federal government. IIRC Bush had the support of over 80% of the population immediately after 9/11 and that slipped to about 50% by the time of the election and now is down to around 37%. His slip seems tied to the morass in Iraq, no WMD’s, a sluggish economy etc. I have seen no signs of wide spread fear of the Government. Just about all my friends and relatives in the US have detested Bushes from day one but none of them are afraid of them.
As I pointed out a while ago many people have come forward publicly to accuse Bush of orchestrating 9/11 but only one of them seems to have suffered any adverse consequences. I’m referring to Kevin Ryan of course but he seems to have gotten fired for using UL letterhead and implying other people in the company backed his views. Do you any other examples of people who have been fired or harassed? Do you believe Jimmy Walter’s claim that he was forced into exile? IIRC he has never explained what forced him. Never the less numerous people from various professions have come forward including electrical, mechanical and aerospace engineers. Like you said there is no reason to expect (civil) engineers to be any different. Would they remain silent just to save their jobs if they knew that explosives must have been used?
Your suggestion that their families might be in danger is also paranoia taken to its extreme of all the members of the 9/11 truth movement and whistle blowers past and present have any of them ever had their families hassled?
You said you spoke to a friend of yours who is a civil engineer, what did he tell you? Didn’t you say he wasn’t afraid?
And what about all the civil engineers from overseas? I should think a French or Brazilian engineer should feel relatively safe. I spoke to a civil engineer I know here and asked him if he would be afraid to write an article suggesting the towers collapsed due to CD, if that was what he believed, and he laughed and said both ideas (CD and being afraid) were ridiculous. You could argue the CIA has long reach but what about Iranian, Cuban or (pre-invasion) Iraqi engineers would fear hold them back too?. What about Islamic engineers from other counties even if they were afraid might not they take a chance to vindicate their religion.
I’m sorry but the “fear factor” is a dumb reality show not a valid excuse for not being able to find any experts to back your theories. Nor can you reasonably argue that most civil engineers are probably unaware of the CD theory since they have been widely reported in the media. Nor is it likely that they don’t know about the collapse theory or what’s in the NIST and ASCE/FEMA reports 9/11 was one of the most important events of the last 100 years and the collapse of the towers the biggest structural failure in history. It’s fair to assume a good number of civil engineers and architects read the reports and various papers about them.
As for the survey I’m starting to warm to the idea because I think it will show that 100% of structural engineers think your theories are poppycock. Maybe you can get st/911 to sponsor it and Jimmy Walter to underwrite it. Try not to make it a “push poll” you could run the questions by some of the skeptics here or elsewhere for comment. I doubt Fetzer would go for the idea because he knows the outcome is likely to be embarrassing for your side
For now, I'll say this: I've talked to 3 Ph.D. techy type re 911 collapses, though not at great length with any of them, and only 1 expressed any fear. As I've pointed out, this guy did not believe that the buildings were demoed, though we didn't have time to get into the best evidence. Yet he was still afraid.*
The other two (one an old friend of mine, who works for the Federal gov't.), believe the government Fairy Tales. Why, then, would they go public and pretend otherwise? And, if they have no intention of pointing an accusatory finger at Uncles Sam, why should they fear getting whacked, imprisoned, or losing their jobs for something they have no intention of doing?
As I've stated before, IMO, I don't believe that the overwhelming majority of civil and construction engineers are familiar with the NIST report OR the most compelling evidence re 911. It's one thing to hear that there's a "conspiracy theory" that the buildings were demoed, another to look at all the evidence. You do recall, don't you, that scientific arguments, unlike political arguments, are properly settled on the basis of the best evidence? Right?
Thus, the survey needs to assess knowledge of both these areas. Surveys of people who are ignorant on the issues is of little value.
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 5 2006, 05:08 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Apr 4 2006, 05:52 AM)
clowns rock the world.
beep, toot, flap
foxx, you're right on the money.
metamars, you're too trusting.
yesitdid, you're a much better 'debater' than the puppet brigade.
scott, seemingly sincere. time will tell.
newtonnjd, gordon, jane doe, jones, sheen, asner, frater, steve jackson......zebuhr... you are all heros. champions of truth.
are we "clowns", the 'new illuminati', enlightened to the activities of the 'black magicians' who run the world??
is this kind of crap, 'the great work', or 'the big secret at the top of the pyramid of power'? that EVERYTHING is filtered into compartments, making, "The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth, So Help Me God" a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY! and actual Physical Reality a Construct of Geobbels and Rove?
URL The Art Of Evil /URL
do not give in to fear, or 'it' will ONLY GET WORSE.
emphasis mine
Well, I suppose that beats being called paranoid delusional.
BTW, I call the window seat on the clown car. Or, if there's a rumble seat, then I call that.
The impact/fire floors suffered the damage that lead to the initial collapse. It has been shown that the energy that was available to have the upper section impact the next lower floor was 31 times the design load(for the north tower). When a load that is 31 times what a structure is designed to handle is caused to suddenly impact that structure it will cause a virtually immediate failure.
YID, I think you are guilty of you're first statement, don't you think?
No
How is it different?
Let me rephrase it then. Foxx does not believe for a minute that there was ever enough heat to cause the local collapse nor does he believe that a local collapse would cause more than the collapse of a few more levels.
Anytime that I have used approximation I believe that I have been careful to say so. I use terms such as 'probable' and 'possible'.
You and others on the other hand often state 'it isn't possible' while newtonnjd just said he accepts a possibility and tried to state that most CD believers accept that possibility.
'taint true!
The quote above concerning the 31 times load factor is data from Bazant-Zhou and you know it. It is clear in their paper and I have on many occasions repeated such, that theirs is an approximation but that they consider the fact that this is an order of magnitude greater to cover the problems associated with approximations.
Again, do you have to hone this skill of misquote and misrepresentation or does it come naturally to you?
I'm learning the rules from you YID. So you are telling me that you didn't misrepresent the B-Z load factors making them look more overwhelming than they truly are?
YES!
As I said I have been quite careful to say that B-Z was a simplified model or an approximation. I may not have said so every single time but the number of times that B-Z has been brought up would suggest that any competent and honest researcher would have read through B-Z's paper and seen there language for themselves. Those not willing to do so and coming to an erroneous conclusion based on what other CD proponent sites say are either lazy or dishonest.
Pick one!
To his credit newtonnjd at least acknowledged that it is possible that impact and fires caused the collapses but that in his opinion it was less likely than the use of explosives.
I will go just as far and state that it is possible that a vast , complicated and complex plot by gov't officials was carried out on 9/11 in part utilizing explosives to blast the towers to "bits" (Foxx's word) and to bring WTC 7 relatively gently down in place. I just believe it highly unlikely and a hypothesis for which there is precious little evidence.
You are full of sh8t YID. You were swinging the BZ load factors like a hammer until Gordon called you on it. You are guilty of the same dishonesty you accuse other posters of (Foxx, Newton, etc.)
Man up.
30 times!!
Edit - BZ say 30 times the force. Not the energy.
But over what fraction of the distance? And have you accounted for the safety factor yet? If not you will have to reduce that figure to 14.45 times. At most.
That of course will be compressive load, but as the columns failed due to buckling, you will have to reduce it again if you want to collapse it over one storey. That should bring it down to less than 4, but for the other tower it would be less than 3.
3 times the force over a fraction of the distance doesn't look quite so impressive does it?
Gordon.
Yes YID, you are guilty of the same tactics, and yet you are defending the "truth". Why would you need to use these tactics if what you are telling us is the truth?
Aluminum at about 1000C or higher glowing orange in an induction heater:
Aluminum near it's melting point. It has a silvery appearance but some patches of glowing red are just visible.
Shagster, are you implying the tower has an RF( radio frequency?) coil in that part of the tower? I have seen molten aluminum and it never appered to be glowing. Is the red ring steel heating the aluminum in the last pictures?
Do you have an example of glowing aluminum from a fire that looks like these pictures:
beep, toot, flap
foxx, you're right on the money.
metamars, you're too trusting.
yesitdid, you're a much better 'debater' than the puppet brigade.
scott, seemingly sincere. time will tell.
newtonnjd, gordon, jane doe, jones, sheen, asner, frater, steve jackson......zebuhr... you are all heros. champions of truth.
are we "clowns", the 'new illuminati', enlightened to the activities of the 'black magicians' who run the world??
is this kind of crap, 'the great work', or 'the big secret at the top of the pyramid of power'? that EVERYTHING is filtered into compartments, making, "The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth, So Help Me God" a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY! and actual Physical Reality a Construct of Geobbels and Rove?
URL The Art Of Evil /URL
do not give in to fear, or 'it' will ONLY GET WORSE.
emphasis mine
Well, I suppose that beats being called paranoid delusional.
BTW, I call the window seat on the clown car. Or, if there's a rumble seat, then I call that.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 10:33 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 07:57 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 12:52 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 08:41 AM)
QUOTE
Lie first and increase the number of believers and only later tell them that some arguments are not intended to be fully supported. (hey didn't Peter or Paul say something similar? Foxx or steve 52 would know)
Mini ProfilePM
Top
Mini ProfilePM
Top
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lie first and increase the number of believers and only later tell them that some arguments are not intended to be fully supported. (hey didn't Peter or Paul say something similar? Foxx or steve 52 would know) Mini ProfilePM Top |
The impact/fire floors suffered the damage that lead to the initial collapse. It has been shown that the energy that was available to have the upper section impact the next lower floor was 31 times the design load(for the north tower). When a load that is 31 times what a structure is designed to handle is caused to suddenly impact that structure it will cause a virtually immediate failure.
YID, I think you are guilty of you're first statement, don't you think?
No
How is it different?
Let me rephrase it then. Foxx does not believe for a minute that there was ever enough heat to cause the local collapse nor does he believe that a local collapse would cause more than the collapse of a few more levels.
Anytime that I have used approximation I believe that I have been careful to say so. I use terms such as 'probable' and 'possible'.
You and others on the other hand often state 'it isn't possible' while newtonnjd just said he accepts a possibility and tried to state that most CD believers accept that possibility.
'taint true!
The quote above concerning the 31 times load factor is data from Bazant-Zhou and you know it. It is clear in their paper and I have on many occasions repeated such, that theirs is an approximation but that they consider the fact that this is an order of magnitude greater to cover the problems associated with approximations.
Again, do you have to hone this skill of misquote and misrepresentation or does it come naturally to you?
I'm learning the rules from you YID. So you are telling me that you didn't misrepresent the B-Z load factors making them look more overwhelming than they truly are?
YES!
As I said I have been quite careful to say that B-Z was a simplified model or an approximation. I may not have said so every single time but the number of times that B-Z has been brought up would suggest that any competent and honest researcher would have read through B-Z's paper and seen there language for themselves. Those not willing to do so and coming to an erroneous conclusion based on what other CD proponent sites say are either lazy or dishonest.
Pick one!
To his credit newtonnjd at least acknowledged that it is possible that impact and fires caused the collapses but that in his opinion it was less likely than the use of explosives.
I will go just as far and state that it is possible that a vast , complicated and complex plot by gov't officials was carried out on 9/11 in part utilizing explosives to blast the towers to "bits" (Foxx's word) and to bring WTC 7 relatively gently down in place. I just believe it highly unlikely and a hypothesis for which there is precious little evidence.
You are full of sh8t YID. You were swinging the BZ load factors like a hammer until Gordon called you on it. You are guilty of the same dishonesty you accuse other posters of (Foxx, Newton, etc.)
Man up.
QUOTE
<<sighs heavily>>
The planes impacts and causes an immediate loss of about 3% of the total load carrying capacity of the building. The resultant fires weaken the ability of the towers to support the mass above the impact zones until the upper section finnaly drops. The falling upper section impacts lower sections with approx 30 times the energy required (Bazant-Zhou) to fail the next floor.
30 times!!
The planes impacts and causes an immediate loss of about 3% of the total load carrying capacity of the building. The resultant fires weaken the ability of the towers to support the mass above the impact zones until the upper section finnaly drops. The falling upper section impacts lower sections with approx 30 times the energy required (Bazant-Zhou) to fail the next floor.
30 times!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| <<sighs heavily>> The planes impacts and causes an immediate loss of about 3% of the total load carrying capacity of the building. The resultant fires weaken the ability of the towers to support the mass above the impact zones until the upper section finnaly drops. The falling upper section impacts lower sections with approx 30 times the energy required (Bazant-Zhou) to fail the next floor. 30 times!! |
30 times!!
Edit - BZ say 30 times the force. Not the energy.
But over what fraction of the distance? And have you accounted for the safety factor yet? If not you will have to reduce that figure to 14.45 times. At most.
That of course will be compressive load, but as the columns failed due to buckling, you will have to reduce it again if you want to collapse it over one storey. That should bring it down to less than 4, but for the other tower it would be less than 3.
3 times the force over a fraction of the distance doesn't look quite so impressive does it?
Gordon.
Yes YID, you are guilty of the same tactics, and yet you are defending the "truth". Why would you need to use these tactics if what you are telling us is the truth?
The molten material pouring out of the south tower is more consistent with aluminum than steel. Steel would have required temperatures of at least 1500C which the hydrocarbon fires alone couldn't have provided. The fires were sufficient to melt aluminum alloys which melt between about 500C and 600C. The landing gear and engine exited the northeast corner so its likely that other parts of the aircraft ended up there also.
If one follows the drops down, they take on a silvery color consistent with aluminum if they don't strike the facade as they fall. If they had been steel, the drops would have appeared yellow-white and wouldn't have taken on a silver color as they fell.
When the drops strike the facade, they take on the orange color. Since aluminum is reactive, that may have been due to the molten aluminum reacting with impurities on the facade. Some of the drops appear orange as they exit the building but turn back to a silver color. There may have been a slag on them initially as they exited the building giving the orange color. It's also possible the some of the metal drops themselves were orange hot as they exited and that the outer layer cooled as they fell, returning them to the characteristic silver color of aluminum.
Photo showing droplets where some appear silver and others appear orange.
Some of the conspiracy sites are falsely claiming that aluminum always looks silver at any temperature. Aluminum glows like any other metal if the temperature is high enough. Near it's melting point aluminum barely glows red-hot. It appears silver in ambient light near its melting point due to reflections. With no ambient light, the red glow can be seen. At higher temperature its radiation is strong enough to over-ride reflections of ambient light and it takes on an orange color.
Aluminum at about 1000C or higher glowing orange in an induction heater:
Aluminum near it's melting point. It has a silvery appearance but some patches of glowing red are just visible.
If one follows the drops down, they take on a silvery color consistent with aluminum if they don't strike the facade as they fall. If they had been steel, the drops would have appeared yellow-white and wouldn't have taken on a silver color as they fell.
When the drops strike the facade, they take on the orange color. Since aluminum is reactive, that may have been due to the molten aluminum reacting with impurities on the facade. Some of the drops appear orange as they exit the building but turn back to a silver color. There may have been a slag on them initially as they exited the building giving the orange color. It's also possible the some of the metal drops themselves were orange hot as they exited and that the outer layer cooled as they fell, returning them to the characteristic silver color of aluminum.
Photo showing droplets where some appear silver and others appear orange.
Some of the conspiracy sites are falsely claiming that aluminum always looks silver at any temperature. Aluminum glows like any other metal if the temperature is high enough. Near it's melting point aluminum barely glows red-hot. It appears silver in ambient light near its melting point due to reflections. With no ambient light, the red glow can be seen. At higher temperature its radiation is strong enough to over-ride reflections of ambient light and it takes on an orange color.
Aluminum at about 1000C or higher glowing orange in an induction heater:
Aluminum near it's melting point. It has a silvery appearance but some patches of glowing red are just visible.
QUOTE (shagster+Apr 5 2006, 12:57 AM)
Aluminum at about 1000C or higher glowing orange in an induction heater:
Aluminum near it's melting point. It has a silvery appearance but some patches of glowing red are just visible.
Shagster, are you implying the tower has an RF( radio frequency?) coil in that part of the tower? I have seen molten aluminum and it never appered to be glowing. Is the red ring steel heating the aluminum in the last pictures?
Do you have an example of glowing aluminum from a fire that looks like these pictures:
It doesn't matter what the heat source is. If the temperature is high enough, it can be seen glowing. The pic below isn't an induction heater but aluminum still glows. I've heated aluminum in resistance type ovens and induction heaters using graphite crucibles as a container and aluminum glows.
If you watch the videos of the drops carefully, you'll see that they return to a shiny silver color in free fall if they don't strike the facade. That's consistent with aluminum but not steel.
If you watch the videos of the drops carefully, you'll see that they return to a shiny silver color in free fall if they don't strike the facade. That's consistent with aluminum but not steel.
I believe this is the web site your earlier picture came from. Without a heat source (oven or furnace), this is what molten aluminum looks like: 
http://www.herculesengines.com/Foundry/
http://www.herculesengines.com/Foundry/
In that pic the temperature of the aluminum is not very much above its melting point. Note that it has a silvery color near its melting point, similar to the drops that were falling from the building after they were in free fall for a while.
If the video is watched carefully, some drops appear to have both a slight orange glow and a silvery appearance, as the one pointed by the arrow in the pic below. That's characteristic of aluminum but not steel.
I don't recall any of the drops looking silver. Some seem to glow white-hot, which is brighter than reflective silver would be. And this is consistent with areas that are white hot in the thermite reaction. Are you honestly telling us you are able to watch the thermite comparison and say that the two are inconsistent, while thinking your hot aluminium photos are a much better match?
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 4 2006, 11:00 PM)
And you weren't engaging in the same thing with your petty twist on the scholars title?
Because I'm finding the present title lacking.
Because I'm finding the present title lacking.
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 5 2006, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Apr 4 2006, 05:52 AM)
clowns rock the world.
beep, toot, flap
foxx, you're right on the money.
metamars, you're too trusting.
yesitdid, you're a much better 'debater' than the puppet brigade.
scott, seemingly sincere. time will tell.
newtonnjd, gordon, jane doe, jones, sheen, asner, frater, steve jackson......zebuhr... you are all heros. champions of truth.
are we "clowns", the 'new illuminati', enlightened to the activities of the 'black magicians' who run the world??
is this kind of crap, 'the great work', or 'the big secret at the top of the pyramid of power'? that EVERYTHING is filtered into compartments, making, "The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth, So Help Me God" a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY! and actual Physical Reality a Construct of Geobbels and Rove?
URL The Art Of Evil /URL
do not give in to fear, or 'it' will ONLY GET WORSE.
emphasis mine
Well, I suppose that beats being called paranoid delusional.
BTW, I call the window seat on the clown car. Or, if there's a rumble seat, then I call that.
There are no windows in the clown car, just the a$$es sticking out of it.
For now, I'll say this: I've talked to 3 Ph.D. techy type re 911 collapses, though not at great length with any of them, and only 1 expressed any fear. As I've pointed out, this guy did not believe that the buildings were demoed, though we didn't have time to get into the best evidence. Yet he was still afraid.*
The other two (one an old friend of mine, who works for the Federal gov't.), believe the government Fairy Tales. Why, then, would they go public and pretend otherwise? And, if they have no intention of pointing an accusatory finger at Uncles Sam, why should they fear getting whacked, imprisoned, or losing their jobs for something they have no intention of doing?
As I've stated before, IMO, I don't believe that the overwhelming majority of civil and construction engineers are familiar with the NIST report OR the most compelling evidence re 911. It's one thing to hear that there's a "conspiracy theory" that the buildings were demoed, another to look at all the evidence. You do recall, don't you, that scientific arguments, unlike political arguments, are properly settled on the basis of the best evidence? Right?
Thus, the survey needs to assess knowledge of both these areas. Surveys of people who are ignorant on the issues is of little value.
It's not lost on anyone that you keep bobbing and weaving around Len's post. First, not everyone in the whole wide world would be afaid even if as you say most are, second, not every structrual engineer in an america. Third why hasn't scholars for swiftboat excuse made an effort to educate structural engineers directly? You keep saying "They never thought about it" (Paraphrase) Sorry but this issue has been out there for years (I believe 2002) and I find it hard to believe they haven't seen the so called "obvious" evidence you present.
Excuses to date:
1) They're scared for their childrens lives (No evidence given for historical precident in this country. No dead families killed by similar G-men)
2) They haven't thought about it (Even though this issue has been out for over 3 years.)
3) They work for the government/also scared (As if government officials haven't come out before for less, Iran/contra and watergate are only two of many historical examples. Not to mention Iraq war evidence and rush to war)
4) They can't even use a third or forth party to get the word out on any paper which could prove CD (Again frozen with fear)
5) It doesn't matter anyway because the media wont carry it (As if they lose something by trying. Maybe the media doesn't carry it because they think this is pure politics and don't want these orgs to pop up every time they don't like the elected officials)
"Scholars for 911 swiftboat Excuse"...
beep, toot, flap
foxx, you're right on the money.
metamars, you're too trusting.
yesitdid, you're a much better 'debater' than the puppet brigade.
scott, seemingly sincere. time will tell.
newtonnjd, gordon, jane doe, jones, sheen, asner, frater, steve jackson......zebuhr... you are all heros. champions of truth.
are we "clowns", the 'new illuminati', enlightened to the activities of the 'black magicians' who run the world??
is this kind of crap, 'the great work', or 'the big secret at the top of the pyramid of power'? that EVERYTHING is filtered into compartments, making, "The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth, So Help Me God" a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY! and actual Physical Reality a Construct of Geobbels and Rove?
URL The Art Of Evil /URL
do not give in to fear, or 'it' will ONLY GET WORSE.
emphasis mine
Well, I suppose that beats being called paranoid delusional.
BTW, I call the window seat on the clown car. Or, if there's a rumble seat, then I call that.
There are no windows in the clown car, just the a$$es sticking out of it.
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 5 2006, 01:35 AM)
For now, I'll say this: I've talked to 3 Ph.D. techy type re 911 collapses, though not at great length with any of them, and only 1 expressed any fear. As I've pointed out, this guy did not believe that the buildings were demoed, though we didn't have time to get into the best evidence. Yet he was still afraid.*
The other two (one an old friend of mine, who works for the Federal gov't.), believe the government Fairy Tales. Why, then, would they go public and pretend otherwise? And, if they have no intention of pointing an accusatory finger at Uncles Sam, why should they fear getting whacked, imprisoned, or losing their jobs for something they have no intention of doing?
As I've stated before, IMO, I don't believe that the overwhelming majority of civil and construction engineers are familiar with the NIST report OR the most compelling evidence re 911. It's one thing to hear that there's a "conspiracy theory" that the buildings were demoed, another to look at all the evidence. You do recall, don't you, that scientific arguments, unlike political arguments, are properly settled on the basis of the best evidence? Right?
Thus, the survey needs to assess knowledge of both these areas. Surveys of people who are ignorant on the issues is of little value.
It's not lost on anyone that you keep bobbing and weaving around Len's post. First, not everyone in the whole wide world would be afaid even if as you say most are, second, not every structrual engineer in an america. Third why hasn't scholars for swiftboat excuse made an effort to educate structural engineers directly? You keep saying "They never thought about it" (Paraphrase) Sorry but this issue has been out there for years (I believe 2002) and I find it hard to believe they haven't seen the so called "obvious" evidence you present.
Excuses to date:
1) They're scared for their childrens lives (No evidence given for historical precident in this country. No dead families killed by similar G-men)
2) They haven't thought about it (Even though this issue has been out for over 3 years.)
3) They work for the government/also scared (As if government officials haven't come out before for less, Iran/contra and watergate are only two of many historical examples. Not to mention Iraq war evidence and rush to war)
4) They can't even use a third or forth party to get the word out on any paper which could prove CD (Again frozen with fear)
5) It doesn't matter anyway because the media wont carry it (As if they lose something by trying. Maybe the media doesn't carry it because they think this is pure politics and don't want these orgs to pop up every time they don't like the elected officials)
"Scholars for 911 swiftboat Excuse"...
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 5 2006, 01:02 PM)
I don't recall any of the drops looking silver. Some seem to glow white-hot, which is brighter than reflective silver would be. And this is consistent with areas that are white hot in the thermite reaction. Are you honestly telling us you are able to watch the thermite comparison and say that the two are inconsistent, while thinking your hot aluminium photos are a much better match?
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
Its Jones that made the blunder. He is hiding a lot of information from you. I called him on it when he trying to claim that the temp couldn't get close to 1000C
It was much more likely the Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris as it washed down. What Jones does not what to tell you is that the airplane debris office furniture, computer debris etc were all shoved to that same area of the building. He also wont tell you that alumnium at 9:27 was seen (silvery at that time) just to the right of that area. He doesn't want to bring up these facts for his happy coincidence. That thermite just happened to be in the same area where the truss sagged and the airplane debris poured out.
Go back through the thread and read some of the info/ news links thats been posted on the subject from the NY times and NIST, etc.
Bring Jones here I'll gladly explain it to him.
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
Its Jones that made the blunder. He is hiding a lot of information from you. I called him on it when he trying to claim that the temp couldn't get close to 1000C
It was much more likely the Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris as it washed down. What Jones does not what to tell you is that the airplane debris office furniture, computer debris etc were all shoved to that same area of the building. He also wont tell you that alumnium at 9:27 was seen (silvery at that time) just to the right of that area. He doesn't want to bring up these facts for his happy coincidence. That thermite just happened to be in the same area where the truss sagged and the airplane debris poured out.
Go back through the thread and read some of the info/ news links thats been posted on the subject from the NY times and NIST, etc.
Bring Jones here I'll gladly explain it to him.
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 5 2006, 06:40 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 5 2006, 01:02 PM)
I don't recall any of the drops looking silver. Some seem to glow white-hot, which is brighter than reflective silver would be. And this is consistent with areas that are white hot in the thermite reaction. Are you honestly telling us you are able to watch the thermite comparison and say that the two are inconsistent, while thinking your hot aluminium photos are a much better match?
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
Its Jones that made the blunder. He is hiding a lot of information from you. I called him on it when he trying to claim that the temp couldn't get close to 1000C
It was much more likely the Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris as it washed down. What Jones does not what to tell you is that the airplane debris office furniture, computer debris etc were all shoved to that same area of the building. He also wont tell you that alumnium at 9:27 was seen (silvery at that time) just to the right of that area. He doesn't want to bring up these facts for his happy coincidence. That thermite just happened to be in the same area where the truss sagged and the airplane debris poured out.
Go back through the thread and read some of the info/ news links thats been posted on the subject from the NY times and NIST, etc.
Bring Jones here I'll gladly explain it to him.
How about explaining it to us. Please show burning aluminum that looks like the pictures I posted.The picture and video have been posted before and nobody has proven aluminum could look like this from a fire.
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
Its Jones that made the blunder. He is hiding a lot of information from you. I called him on it when he trying to claim that the temp couldn't get close to 1000C
It was much more likely the Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris as it washed down. What Jones does not what to tell you is that the airplane debris office furniture, computer debris etc were all shoved to that same area of the building. He also wont tell you that alumnium at 9:27 was seen (silvery at that time) just to the right of that area. He doesn't want to bring up these facts for his happy coincidence. That thermite just happened to be in the same area where the truss sagged and the airplane debris poured out.
Go back through the thread and read some of the info/ news links thats been posted on the subject from the NY times and NIST, etc.
Bring Jones here I'll gladly explain it to him.
How about explaining it to us. Please show burning aluminum that looks like the pictures I posted.The picture and video have been posted before and nobody has proven aluminum could look like this from a fire.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 03:17 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 5 2006, 06:40 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 5 2006, 01:02 PM)
I don't recall any of the drops looking silver. Some seem to glow white-hot, which is brighter than reflective silver would be. And this is consistent with areas that are white hot in the thermite reaction. Are you honestly telling us you are able to watch the thermite comparison and say that the two are inconsistent, while thinking your hot aluminium photos are a much better match?
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
Its Jones that made the blunder. He is hiding a lot of information from you. I called him on it when he trying to claim that the temp couldn't get close to 1000C
It was much more likely the Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris as it washed down. What Jones does not what to tell you is that the airplane debris office furniture, computer debris etc were all shoved to that same area of the building. He also wont tell you that alumnium at 9:27 was seen (silvery at that time) just to the right of that area. He doesn't want to bring up these facts for his happy coincidence. That thermite just happened to be in the same area where the truss sagged and the airplane debris poured out.
Go back through the thread and read some of the info/ news links thats been posted on the subject from the NY times and NIST, etc.
Bring Jones here I'll gladly explain it to him.
How about explaining it to us. Please show burning aluminum that looks like the pictures I posted.The picture and video have been posted before and nobody has proven aluminum could look like this from a fire.
I'm sorry I don't have a picture of burning Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris at 1000C handy right now.
I've already explained some. Go ahead and get him. I've already exaplined the dishonest attemps to get the temp down by misquoting Edgars comments. After briefly speaking to Edgar about it, I don't think he's too happy. This one isn't as bad as photoshoped photos that he had to pull or the phantom squibs but its still dishonest for him to hide all of this information from you guys.
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
Its Jones that made the blunder. He is hiding a lot of information from you. I called him on it when he trying to claim that the temp couldn't get close to 1000C
It was much more likely the Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris as it washed down. What Jones does not what to tell you is that the airplane debris office furniture, computer debris etc were all shoved to that same area of the building. He also wont tell you that alumnium at 9:27 was seen (silvery at that time) just to the right of that area. He doesn't want to bring up these facts for his happy coincidence. That thermite just happened to be in the same area where the truss sagged and the airplane debris poured out.
Go back through the thread and read some of the info/ news links thats been posted on the subject from the NY times and NIST, etc.
Bring Jones here I'll gladly explain it to him.
How about explaining it to us. Please show burning aluminum that looks like the pictures I posted.The picture and video have been posted before and nobody has proven aluminum could look like this from a fire.
I'm sorry I don't have a picture of burning Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris at 1000C handy right now.
I've already explained some. Go ahead and get him. I've already exaplined the dishonest attemps to get the temp down by misquoting Edgars comments. After briefly speaking to Edgar about it, I don't think he's too happy. This one isn't as bad as photoshoped photos that he had to pull or the phantom squibs but its still dishonest for him to hide all of this information from you guys.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 5 2006, 03:35 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 03:17 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 5 2006, 06:40 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 5 2006, 01:02 PM)
I don't recall any of the drops looking silver. Some seem to glow white-hot, which is brighter than reflective silver would be. And this is consistent with areas that are white hot in the thermite reaction. Are you honestly telling us you are able to watch the thermite comparison and say that the two are inconsistent, while thinking your hot aluminium photos are a much better match?
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
Its Jones that made the blunder. He is hiding a lot of information from you. I called him on it when he trying to claim that the temp couldn't get close to 1000C
It was much more likely the Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris as it washed down. What Jones does not what to tell you is that the airplane debris office furniture, computer debris etc were all shoved to that same area of the building. He also wont tell you that alumnium at 9:27 was seen (silvery at that time) just to the right of that area. He doesn't want to bring up these facts for his happy coincidence. That thermite just happened to be in the same area where the truss sagged and the airplane debris poured out.
Go back through the thread and read some of the info/ news links thats been posted on the subject from the NY times and NIST, etc.
Bring Jones here I'll gladly explain it to him.
How about explaining it to us. Please show burning aluminum that looks like the pictures I posted.The picture and video have been posted before and nobody has proven aluminum could look like this from a fire.
I'm sorry I don't have a picture of burning Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris at 1000C handy right now.
I've already explained some. Go ahead and get him. I've already exaplined the dishonest attemps to get the temp down by misquoting Edgars comments. After briefly speaking to Edgar about it, I don't think he's too happy. This one isn't as bad as photoshoped photos that he had to pull or the phantom squibs but its still dishonest for him to hide all of this information from you guys.
Correction "photo"
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
Its Jones that made the blunder. He is hiding a lot of information from you. I called him on it when he trying to claim that the temp couldn't get close to 1000C
It was much more likely the Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris as it washed down. What Jones does not what to tell you is that the airplane debris office furniture, computer debris etc were all shoved to that same area of the building. He also wont tell you that alumnium at 9:27 was seen (silvery at that time) just to the right of that area. He doesn't want to bring up these facts for his happy coincidence. That thermite just happened to be in the same area where the truss sagged and the airplane debris poured out.
Go back through the thread and read some of the info/ news links thats been posted on the subject from the NY times and NIST, etc.
Bring Jones here I'll gladly explain it to him.
How about explaining it to us. Please show burning aluminum that looks like the pictures I posted.The picture and video have been posted before and nobody has proven aluminum could look like this from a fire.
I'm sorry I don't have a picture of burning Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris at 1000C handy right now.
I've already explained some. Go ahead and get him. I've already exaplined the dishonest attemps to get the temp down by misquoting Edgars comments. After briefly speaking to Edgar about it, I don't think he's too happy. This one isn't as bad as photoshoped photos that he had to pull or the phantom squibs but its still dishonest for him to hide all of this information from you guys.
Correction "photo"
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 5 2006, 07:35 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 03:17 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 5 2006, 06:40 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 5 2006, 01:02 PM)
I don't recall any of the drops looking silver. Some seem to glow white-hot, which is brighter than reflective silver would be. And this is consistent with areas that are white hot in the thermite reaction. Are you honestly telling us you are able to watch the thermite comparison and say that the two are inconsistent, while thinking your hot aluminium photos are a much better match?
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
Its Jones that made the blunder. He is hiding a lot of information from you. I called him on it when he trying to claim that the temp couldn't get close to 1000C
It was much more likely the Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris as it washed down. What Jones does not what to tell you is that the airplane debris office furniture, computer debris etc were all shoved to that same area of the building. He also wont tell you that alumnium at 9:27 was seen (silvery at that time) just to the right of that area. He doesn't want to bring up these facts for his happy coincidence. That thermite just happened to be in the same area where the truss sagged and the airplane debris poured out.
Go back through the thread and read some of the info/ news links thats been posted on the subject from the NY times and NIST, etc.
Bring Jones here I'll gladly explain it to him.
How about explaining it to us. Please show burning aluminum that looks like the pictures I posted.The picture and video have been posted before and nobody has proven aluminum could look like this from a fire.
I'm sorry I don't have a picture of burning Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris at 1000C handy right now.
I've already explained some. Go ahead and get him. I've already exaplined the dishonest attemps to get the temp down by misquoting Edgars comments. After briefly speaking to Edgar about it, I don't think he's too happy. This one isn't as bad as photoshoped photos that he had to pull or the phantom squibs but its still dishonest for him to hide all of this information from you guys.
I have seen aluminum added to a very hot carbon fire and it melted (did not burn) . Then it was the a silver color, the same as the photo I posted above. It looked nothing like themite melting steel.Alloys would make it more difficult to melt or burn.
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
Its Jones that made the blunder. He is hiding a lot of information from you. I called him on it when he trying to claim that the temp couldn't get close to 1000C
It was much more likely the Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris as it washed down. What Jones does not what to tell you is that the airplane debris office furniture, computer debris etc were all shoved to that same area of the building. He also wont tell you that alumnium at 9:27 was seen (silvery at that time) just to the right of that area. He doesn't want to bring up these facts for his happy coincidence. That thermite just happened to be in the same area where the truss sagged and the airplane debris poured out.
Go back through the thread and read some of the info/ news links thats been posted on the subject from the NY times and NIST, etc.
Bring Jones here I'll gladly explain it to him.
How about explaining it to us. Please show burning aluminum that looks like the pictures I posted.The picture and video have been posted before and nobody has proven aluminum could look like this from a fire.
I'm sorry I don't have a picture of burning Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris at 1000C handy right now.
I've already explained some. Go ahead and get him. I've already exaplined the dishonest attemps to get the temp down by misquoting Edgars comments. After briefly speaking to Edgar about it, I don't think he's too happy. This one isn't as bad as photoshoped photos that he had to pull or the phantom squibs but its still dishonest for him to hide all of this information from you guys.
I have seen aluminum added to a very hot carbon fire and it melted (did not burn) . Then it was the a silver color, the same as the photo I posted above. It looked nothing like themite melting steel.Alloys would make it more difficult to melt or burn.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 04:13 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 5 2006, 07:35 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 5 2006, 03:17 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 5 2006, 06:40 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 5 2006, 01:02 PM)
I don't recall any of the drops looking silver. Some seem to glow white-hot, which is brighter than reflective silver would be. And this is consistent with areas that are white hot in the thermite reaction. Are you honestly telling us you are able to watch the thermite comparison and say that the two are inconsistent, while thinking your hot aluminium photos are a much better match?
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
Its Jones that made the blunder. He is hiding a lot of information from you. I called him on it when he trying to claim that the temp couldn't get close to 1000C
It was much more likely the Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris as it washed down. What Jones does not what to tell you is that the airplane debris office furniture, computer debris etc were all shoved to that same area of the building. He also wont tell you that alumnium at 9:27 was seen (silvery at that time) just to the right of that area. He doesn't want to bring up these facts for his happy coincidence. That thermite just happened to be in the same area where the truss sagged and the airplane debris poured out.
Go back through the thread and read some of the info/ news links thats been posted on the subject from the NY times and NIST, etc.
Bring Jones here I'll gladly explain it to him.
How about explaining it to us. Please show burning aluminum that looks like the pictures I posted.The picture and video have been posted before and nobody has proven aluminum could look like this from a fire.
I'm sorry I don't have a picture of burning Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris at 1000C handy right now.
I've already explained some. Go ahead and get him. I've already exaplined the dishonest attemps to get the temp down by misquoting Edgars comments. After briefly speaking to Edgar about it, I don't think he's too happy. This one isn't as bad as photoshoped photos that he had to pull or the phantom squibs but its still dishonest for him to hide all of this information from you guys.
I have seen aluminum added to a very hot carbon fire and it melted (did not burn) . Then it was the a silver color, the same as the photo I posted above. It looked nothing like themite melting steel.Alloys would make it more difficult to melt or burn.
Your right it didn't burn the melting points of the allows are roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. Baking in fully developed fires 1000C mixed with other hot pieces debris, then and washing down I see no problem here.
I am at work now so I will be posting a little less.
Best Scott
In any case, Professor Jones and the rest of the scholars group through discussion have effectively ruled out aluminium. Also, even Greening tries to show that thermite reactions could have occured naturally in order to explain this phenomenon. He doesn't seem to think aluminium on its own is feasible. So to rule out the thermite reaction completely, as you seem to be doing, shows that you are not looking at the data objectively.
Its Jones that made the blunder. He is hiding a lot of information from you. I called him on it when he trying to claim that the temp couldn't get close to 1000C
It was much more likely the Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris as it washed down. What Jones does not what to tell you is that the airplane debris office furniture, computer debris etc were all shoved to that same area of the building. He also wont tell you that alumnium at 9:27 was seen (silvery at that time) just to the right of that area. He doesn't want to bring up these facts for his happy coincidence. That thermite just happened to be in the same area where the truss sagged and the airplane debris poured out.
Go back through the thread and read some of the info/ news links thats been posted on the subject from the NY times and NIST, etc.
Bring Jones here I'll gladly explain it to him.
How about explaining it to us. Please show burning aluminum that looks like the pictures I posted.The picture and video have been posted before and nobody has proven aluminum could look like this from a fire.
I'm sorry I don't have a picture of burning Boeing 767 aluminum alloys 2024 and 7075 mixed with some other debris at 1000C handy right now.
I've already explained some. Go ahead and get him. I've already exaplined the dishonest attemps to get the temp down by misquoting Edgars comments. After briefly speaking to Edgar about it, I don't think he's too happy. This one isn't as bad as photoshoped photos that he had to pull or the phantom squibs but its still dishonest for him to hide all of this information from you guys.
I have seen aluminum added to a very hot carbon fire and it melted (did not burn) . Then it was the a silver color, the same as the photo I posted above. It looked nothing like themite melting steel.Alloys would make it more difficult to melt or burn.
Your right it didn't burn the melting points of the allows are roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. Baking in fully developed fires 1000C mixed with other hot pieces debris, then and washing down I see no problem here.
I am at work now so I will be posting a little less.
Best Scott
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 5 2006, 08:07 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 10:33 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 07:57 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Apr 4 2006, 12:52 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 4 2006, 08:41 AM)
QUOTE
Lie first and increase the number of believers and only later tell them that some arguments are not intended to be fully supported. (hey didn't Peter or Paul say something similar? Foxx or steve 52 would know)