Could I join the scholarsfor911truth secret forum?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 5 2006, 09:40 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Apr 5 2006, 03:10 PM)
i never heard him mention missiles fired from helicopters. that was MY guess, CSpam.
the explosions heard before the collapse are nearly as deep and loud as the sound produced as the tower collapses. the remaining spire(from the second collapse) collapses WITH NO SOUND.
NOOOOOOOOOOO newtesticle, Hes not trying to imply the heilcopter fired missiles...
He was just asking a question out loud... Yeah, I believe that, I'm there...
Yeah, every floor has to fall at the very same time too. Floors collapsing just before the global collapse could NOT have happened right? Nothing like the penthouse collapse preciding building 7's collapse only instead of a penthouse it's a floor or two... That couldn't have happened at all...
Just another nutjob making a dollor off a video.
commonsense, IN DA HOUSE, MIS-REPRESENTIN'!
once again, you claimed that rick said there were missiles. anyone who has not seen the movie, would simply believe your OUTRIGHT LIE. why are you lying? why do you lie all the time? he never said it. he never even IMPLIED it, as you FABRICATE. he asked the questions, "what were those flashes coming from the helicopter", and, "why did the tower fall down immediately after the flashes?" (my words, obviously)
what i noticed yesterday, is that he also provided a higher resolution testimony, ie. that of his eyeballs. he said there was something lowered out of the helicopter. i didn't notice that the first time, 'round. "like a rescue".
common sense, i don't even know why i don't just completely ignore you.
i guess because i figger there must be other people in the world who are as confused as you about reality, and need to be hand held and guided to the light.
should the sound of one floor plan dropping be as sonically energetic as the whole 'cap' descending(which is, of course, at least TEN FLOORS plus much more massive core and perimeter materials?)
(just a question. i hope, "you're there")
should floors dropping in perfect sync make more, or less noise than forty to sixty storeys of the core falling?
and don't forget, common mistakes, that the floors allegedly collapsed INSIDE the building, which would mask the sound.
keep talking, though. your great at convicting yourself.
the 'squibs' have not been 'debunked' anywhere. they are clearly visible on many video and photographic records. only an shill obfuscator pronounces, "case closed" when the case is barely open.
Sorry Newton.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...ses/squibs.html
no need to apologise. we can all be wrong, sometimes.
squibs have not been debunked.
you cannot 'debunk' for me something i have seen with mine own eyes.
i am not positive that the row of squibs seen in the famous tower seven video are actually squibs, but there are definitely squibs coming out of the big ones.
you can hear bombs in the 911eyewitness video. bombs sound like bombs. collapsing floors inside a building are likely barely audible from two miles away. the bombs are very loud.
there were definitely bombs.
Sorry Newton.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...ses/squibs.html
no need to apologise. we can all be wrong, sometimes.
squibs have not been debunked.
you cannot 'debunk' for me something i have seen with mine own eyes.
i am not positive that the row of squibs seen in the famous tower seven video are actually squibs, but there are definitely squibs coming out of the big ones.
you can hear bombs in the 911eyewitness video. bombs sound like bombs. collapsing floors inside a building are likely barely audible from two miles away. the bombs are very loud.
there were definitely bombs.
Your now talking about the Twin Towers.
That's another topic which people have gone over and over.
Not interested in yet another pissing match on this one.
I was refering to Building 7.
the explosions heard before the collapse are nearly as deep and loud as the sound produced as the tower collapses. the remaining spire(from the second collapse) collapses WITH NO SOUND.
NOOOOOOOOOOO newtesticle, Hes not trying to imply the heilcopter fired missiles...
He was just asking a question out loud... Yeah, I believe that, I'm there...
Yeah, every floor has to fall at the very same time too. Floors collapsing just before the global collapse could NOT have happened right?
Nothing like the penthouse collapse preciding building 7's collapse only instead of a penthouse it's a floor or two... That couldn't have happened at all... Just another nutjob making a dollor off a video.
commonsense, IN DA HOUSE, MIS-REPRESENTIN'!
once again, you claimed that rick said there were missiles. anyone who has not seen the movie, would simply believe your OUTRIGHT LIE. why are you lying? why do you lie all the time? he never said it. he never even IMPLIED it, as you FABRICATE. he asked the questions, "what were those flashes coming from the helicopter", and, "why did the tower fall down immediately after the flashes?" (my words, obviously)
what i noticed yesterday, is that he also provided a higher resolution testimony, ie. that of his eyeballs. he said there was something lowered out of the helicopter. i didn't notice that the first time, 'round. "like a rescue".
common sense, i don't even know why i don't just completely ignore you.
i guess because i figger there must be other people in the world who are as confused as you about reality, and need to be hand held and guided to the light.
should the sound of one floor plan dropping be as sonically energetic as the whole 'cap' descending(which is, of course, at least TEN FLOORS plus much more massive core and perimeter materials?)
(just a question. i hope, "you're there")
should floors dropping in perfect sync make more, or less noise than forty to sixty storeys of the core falling?
and don't forget, common mistakes, that the floors allegedly collapsed INSIDE the building, which would mask the sound.
keep talking, though. your great at convicting yourself.
the 'squibs' have not been 'debunked' anywhere. they are clearly visible on many video and photographic records. only an shill obfuscator pronounces, "case closed" when the case is barely open.
QUOTE (ScottS+Mar 31 2006, 07:23 AM)
Prof Jones, its nice to see that you are fixing more of the errors I pointed out in your paper, however you still have many to go.
We can next start with section 5 of your paper. Its completely wrong.
As I'm sure you've seen from 911myths and other places.. the squibs don't appear.
You stated,
"The upper floors have evidently not moved relative to one another yet, from what one can observe from the videos."
This is also completely wrong. Everyone can see this from the 911myths site.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
Futhermore you can look at the other videos, they (like the higher rez video at 911 myths).
show no squibs either.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/
Another point please read the NIST report regarding the molten metal (Alumnium). If you just read the report more carefully you wouldn't have to keep updating errors in your paper. (Like the antenna fall) You also might want to e-mail Eagar. I don't think he's very happy with the edits and misrepresentations you made to his article. (Although I did note you added some info on section 11) Good, keep going.
You also might want to send Barnett an e-mail. According to your video you said he's a good guy.
Maybe then you should send him an e-mail. That way you don't have to listen to me explain what metal he was talking about.
Also when I asked you "Why couldn't the temps in the rubble with all of the fuel and combustibles get as hot as it was", you never really responded and stated you are still working on the theory. Are you ready now? I'd like to hear it from YOU.
I'm ready to hear you defend your paper here. Think of it this way, at worse you will be making many more corrections to help tighten up your information. You can take time responding if you want also, I'm a busy guy also so don't worry.
PS. Can I also ask who has been peer reviewing your paper?
Scott
Sorry Newton.
We can next start with section 5 of your paper. Its completely wrong.
As I'm sure you've seen from 911myths and other places.. the squibs don't appear.
You stated,
"The upper floors have evidently not moved relative to one another yet, from what one can observe from the videos."
This is also completely wrong. Everyone can see this from the 911myths site.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
Futhermore you can look at the other videos, they (like the higher rez video at 911 myths).
show no squibs either.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/
Another point please read the NIST report regarding the molten metal (Alumnium). If you just read the report more carefully you wouldn't have to keep updating errors in your paper. (Like the antenna fall) You also might want to e-mail Eagar. I don't think he's very happy with the edits and misrepresentations you made to his article. (Although I did note you added some info on section 11) Good, keep going.
You also might want to send Barnett an e-mail. According to your video you said he's a good guy.
Maybe then you should send him an e-mail. That way you don't have to listen to me explain what metal he was talking about.
Also when I asked you "Why couldn't the temps in the rubble with all of the fuel and combustibles get as hot as it was", you never really responded and stated you are still working on the theory. Are you ready now? I'd like to hear it from YOU.
I'm ready to hear you defend your paper here. Think of it this way, at worse you will be making many more corrections to help tighten up your information. You can take time responding if you want also, I'm a busy guy also so don't worry.
PS. Can I also ask who has been peer reviewing your paper?
Scott
Sorry Newton.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 5 2006, 11:40 PM)
Sorry Newton.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...ses/squibs.html
no need to apologise. we can all be wrong, sometimes.
squibs have not been debunked.
you cannot 'debunk' for me something i have seen with mine own eyes.
i am not positive that the row of squibs seen in the famous tower seven video are actually squibs, but there are definitely squibs coming out of the big ones.
you can hear bombs in the 911eyewitness video. bombs sound like bombs. collapsing floors inside a building are likely barely audible from two miles away. the bombs are very loud.
there were definitely bombs.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 5 2006, 11:40 PM)
Sorry Newton.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...ses/squibs.html
no need to apologise. we can all be wrong, sometimes.
squibs have not been debunked.
you cannot 'debunk' for me something i have seen with mine own eyes.
i am not positive that the row of squibs seen in the famous tower seven video are actually squibs, but there are definitely squibs coming out of the big ones.
you can hear bombs in the 911eyewitness video. bombs sound like bombs. collapsing floors inside a building are likely barely audible from two miles away. the bombs are very loud.
there were definitely bombs.
Your now talking about the Twin Towers.
That's another topic which people have gone over and over.
Not interested in yet another pissing match on this one.
I was refering to Building 7.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 5 2006, 06:32 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 5 2006, 09:40 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Apr 5 2006, 03:10 PM)
i never heard him mention missiles fired from helicopters. that was MY guess, CSpam.
the explosions heard before the collapse are nearly as deep and loud as the sound produced as the tower collapses. the remaining spire(from the second collapse) collapses WITH NO SOUND.
NOOOOOOOOOOO newtesticle, Hes not trying to imply the heilcopter fired missiles...
He was just asking a question out loud... Yeah, I believe that, I'm there...
Yeah, every floor has to fall at the very same time too. Floors collapsing just before the global collapse could NOT have happened right? Nothing like the penthouse collapse preciding building 7's collapse only instead of a penthouse it's a floor or two... That couldn't have happened at all...
Just another nutjob making a dollor off a video.
commonsense, IN DA HOUSE, MIS-REPRESENTIN'!
once again, you claimed that rick said there were missiles. anyone who has not seen the movie, would simply believe your OUTRIGHT LIE. why are you lying? why do you lie all the time? he never said it. he never even IMPLIED it, as you FABRICATE. he asked the questions, "what were those flashes coming from the helicopter", and, "why did the tower fall down immediately after the flashes?" (my words, obviously)
what i noticed yesterday, is that he also provided a higher resolution testimony, ie. that of his eyeballs. he said there was something lowered out of the helicopter. i didn't notice that the first time, 'round. "like a rescue".
common sense, i don't even know why i don't just completely ignore you.
i guess because i figger there must be other people in the world who are as confused as you about reality, and need to be hand held and guided to the light.
should the sound of one floor plan dropping be as sonically energetic as the whole 'cap' descending(which is, of course, at least TEN FLOORS and much more massive core and perimeter materials?
(just a question. i hope, "you're there")
should floors dropping in perfect sync make more, or less noise than forty to sixty storeys of the core falling?
and don't forget, common mistakes, that the floors allegedly collapsed INSIDE the building, which would mask the sound.
keep talking, though. your great at convicting yourself.
the 'squibs' have not been 'debunked' anywhere. they are clearly visible on many video and photographic records. only an shill obfuscator pronounces, "case closed" when the case is barely open.
I'll let the rational reader judge for themselfs. It's obvious to anyone what this piece of crap is implying.
"Rick saw something which looked like a millitary rescue helicopter."
someone with the brains of newtesticle: CIA! FBI! Bush!!!
"What could those bright flashes be?"
someone with the brains of newtesticle: Bombs! What else could they be!
"what were those flashes coming from the helicopter"
someone with the brains of newtesticle: Bombs! Missiles! Nuke! Thermite!
So once again Newtesticle is resorting to personal attacks in the place of rational thought.
'round. "like a rescue".
That's AFTER he plants the idea in your head. Why would he mention it if it had nothing to do with CD? Use your head, why would he mention it if they dropped something? hummmmm...... Because hes trying to say they dropped a bomb or something. Missile, bomb, nuke, same shait. They dropped something no one else in the world saw. Yeah...
I'll leave it up to the people reading...
Sorry Newton.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...ses/squibs.html
no need to apologise. we can all be wrong, sometimes.
squibs have not been debunked.
you cannot 'debunk' for me something i have seen with mine own eyes.
i am not positive that the row of squibs seen in the famous tower seven video are actually squibs, but there are definitely squibs coming out of the big ones.
you can hear bombs in the 911eyewitness video. bombs sound like bombs. collapsing floors inside a building are likely barely audible from two miles away. the bombs are very loud.
there were definitely bombs.
Your now talking about the Twin Towers.
That's another topic which people have gone over and over.
Not interested in yet another pissing match on this one.
I was refering to Building 7.
with regards to seven, dust is ejected out all sides simultaneously at collapse initiation.
with regards to seven, if it was damaged on one side, why did it fall straight down?
with regards to seven, why did the steel structure offer less resistance than air would have(i think with air resistance, the fall time should be roughly 10 seconds).
and, why didn't the AIR offer much resistance? where did it go?
i am interesting in a pissing match.
people have gone over and over the kennedy assassination, and it has been proven over and over that there was more than one shooter, and that there was a cover-up. has anyone been brought to justice? has the investigation been reopened?
the LAME cointelpro excuse for the squibs coming out of the big towers, is that it was air compressed in a shaft.
well, the shafts are forty to sixty feet away from the edge of the building, making a 'laser focus' of air pressure IMPOSSIBLE.
so. maybe it needs to be gone over and over some more.
if there were bombs and squibs in one building, then it is no great stretch to postulate there may have been bombs and squibs in the others.
when one building falls with little resistance from even AIR, it is no great stretch to postulate that the high speed descent of the other two had similiar causes.
i wouldn't let this guy into the secret forum at scholars for truth. CSotts is obviously more interested in propping up the official story, than getting at the truth.
sorry, scott.
I'll let the rational reader judge for themselfs. It's obvious to anyone what this piece of crap is implying.
"Rick saw something which looked like a millitary rescue helicopter."
someone with the brains of newtesticle: CIA! FBI! Bush!!!
"What could those bright flashes be?"
someone with the brains of newtesticle: Bombs! What else could they be!
"what were those flashes coming from the helicopter"
someone with the brains of newtesticle: Bombs! Missiles! Nuke! Thermite!
So once again Newtesticle is resorting to personal attacks in the place of rational thought.
'round. "like a rescue".
That's AFTER he plants the idea in your head. Why would he mention it if it had nothing to do with CD? Use your head, why would he mention it if they dropped something? hummmmm...... Because hes trying to say they dropped a bomb or something. Missile, bomb, nuke, same shait. They dropped something no one else in the world saw. Yeah...
I'll leave it up to the people reading...
this 'piece of crap'? who rick, or me? both, obviously.
once again, it's an honour to be insulted by you, so on behalf of the very brave and honourable rick, i say, "thanks".
you put the words in the wrong order.
you see military is modifying RESCUE, not HELICOPTER. anyway, rick was just some guy with a camera. why is he supposed to be infallible? why does it even MATTER? i personally wouldn't have added the word military, but it is a tiny detail, and mostly irrelevent.
i mean, you can HEAR BOMBS going off BEFORE the building even budges a little.
once again, the sound of debris collapsing INSIDE the building is masked, and has no where NEAR the energy of the collapse of the spire, which is OUTSIDE and MUCH MORE MASSIVE.
Sorry Newton.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...ses/squibs.html
no need to apologise. we can all be wrong, sometimes.
squibs have not been debunked.
you cannot 'debunk' for me something i have seen with mine own eyes.
i am not positive that the row of squibs seen in the famous tower seven video are actually squibs, but there are definitely squibs coming out of the big ones.
you can hear bombs in the 911eyewitness video. bombs sound like bombs. collapsing floors inside a building are likely barely audible from two miles away. the bombs are very loud.
there were definitely bombs.
Your now talking about the Twin Towers.
That's another topic which people have gone over and over.
Not interested in yet another pissing match on this one.
I was refering to Building 7.
with regards to seven, dust is ejected out all sides simultaneously at collapse initiation.
with regards to seven, if it was damaged on one side, why did it fall straight down?
with regards to seven, why did the steel structure offer less resistance than air would have(i think with air resistance, the fall time should be roughly 10 seconds).
and, why didn't the AIR offer much resistance? where did it go?
i am interesting in a pissing match.
people have gone over and over the kennedy assassination, and it has been proven over and over that there was more than one shooter, and that there was a cover-up. has anyone been brought to justice? has the investigation been reopened?
the LAME cointelpro excuse for the squibs coming out of the big towers, is that it was air compressed in a shaft.
well, the shafts are forty to sixty feet away from the edge of the building, making a 'laser focus' of air pressure IMPOSSIBLE.
so. maybe it needs to be gone over and over some more.
if there were bombs and squibs in one building, then it is no great stretch to postulate there may have been bombs and squibs in the others.
when one building falls with little resistance from even AIR, it is no great stretch to postulate that the high speed descent of the other two had similiar causes.
i wouldn't let this guy into the secret forum at scholars for truth. CSotts is obviously more interested in propping up the official story, than getting at the truth.
sorry, scott.
I CAN see your interested in a pissing match. Nothing good will come of it, anything I present will be for the most part rejected. I am also still researching just as many of us are.
If I have errored in my research in any way please point this out and I will check it out. If I point out errors in Jones paper then they should be considered. The methodogy should be considered.
Please.
Less time than air?? I am interesting in seeing more on this claim.
I haven't considered the fall time really in question as is the symetical type collapse.
I'll let the rational reader judge for themselfs. It's obvious to anyone what this piece of crap is implying.
"Rick saw something which looked like a millitary rescue helicopter."
someone with the brains of newtesticle: CIA! FBI! Bush!!!
"What could those bright flashes be?"
someone with the brains of newtesticle: Bombs! What else could they be!
"what were those flashes coming from the helicopter"
someone with the brains of newtesticle: Bombs! Missiles! Nuke! Thermite!
So once again Newtesticle is resorting to personal attacks in the place of rational thought.
'round. "like a rescue".
That's AFTER he plants the idea in your head. Why would he mention it if it had nothing to do with CD? Use your head, why would he mention it if they dropped something? hummmmm...... Because hes trying to say they dropped a bomb or something. Missile, bomb, nuke, same shait. They dropped something no one else in the world saw. Yeah...
I'll leave it up to the people reading...
this 'piece of crap'? who rick, or me? both, obviously.
once again, it's an honour to be insulted by you, so on behalf of the very brave and honourable rick, i say, "thanks".
you put the words in the wrong order.
you see military is modifying RESCUE, not HELICOPTER. anyway, rick was just some guy with a camera. why is he supposed to be infallible? why does it even MATTER? i personally wouldn't have added the word military, but it is a tiny detail, and mostly irrelevent.
i mean, you can HEAR BOMBS going off BEFORE the building even budges a little.
once again, the sound of debris collapsing INSIDE the building is masked, and has no where NEAR the energy of the collapse of the spire, which is OUTSIDE and MUCH MORE MASSIVE.
Yeah, right, I started with the "C-Spam" right... Your credibility has collapsed from self CD.
Probably because it doesn't offer any real quantitative arguement that the temperature gradients would produce "yield-level" stresses.
For the record though, I agree with you about the WTC7 squibs. I would like to see this removed from the paper.
I also wish 9/11 Eyewitness did not comment on the flashing helicopter. The rest of the film is excellent, but that is a very sloppy moment.
newton does make a good point that needs answering - what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
Probably because it doesn't offer any real quantitative arguement that the temperature gradients would produce "yield-level" stresses.
For the record though, I agree with you about the WTC7 squibs. I would like to see this removed from the paper.
I also wish 9/11 Eyewitness did not comment on the flashing helicopter. The rest of the film is excellent, but that is a very sloppy moment.
newton does make a good point that needs answering - what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
Thats fine if you disagree with any real quantitative arguement here, however by not including this information, it gives a false impression of Edgars views. His explaination is removed.
Thanks for the agreement on the squibs.
As to your claim:
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
I would ask that you give me the same as you wanted from Edgars paper.
the explosions heard before the collapse are nearly as deep and loud as the sound produced as the tower collapses. the remaining spire(from the second collapse) collapses WITH NO SOUND.
NOOOOOOOOOOO newtesticle, Hes not trying to imply the heilcopter fired missiles...
He was just asking a question out loud... Yeah, I believe that, I'm there...
Yeah, every floor has to fall at the very same time too. Floors collapsing just before the global collapse could NOT have happened right?
Nothing like the penthouse collapse preciding building 7's collapse only instead of a penthouse it's a floor or two... That couldn't have happened at all... Just another nutjob making a dollor off a video.
commonsense, IN DA HOUSE, MIS-REPRESENTIN'!
once again, you claimed that rick said there were missiles. anyone who has not seen the movie, would simply believe your OUTRIGHT LIE. why are you lying? why do you lie all the time? he never said it. he never even IMPLIED it, as you FABRICATE. he asked the questions, "what were those flashes coming from the helicopter", and, "why did the tower fall down immediately after the flashes?" (my words, obviously)
what i noticed yesterday, is that he also provided a higher resolution testimony, ie. that of his eyeballs. he said there was something lowered out of the helicopter. i didn't notice that the first time, 'round. "like a rescue".
common sense, i don't even know why i don't just completely ignore you.
i guess because i figger there must be other people in the world who are as confused as you about reality, and need to be hand held and guided to the light.
should the sound of one floor plan dropping be as sonically energetic as the whole 'cap' descending(which is, of course, at least TEN FLOORS and much more massive core and perimeter materials?
(just a question. i hope, "you're there")
should floors dropping in perfect sync make more, or less noise than forty to sixty storeys of the core falling?
and don't forget, common mistakes, that the floors allegedly collapsed INSIDE the building, which would mask the sound.
keep talking, though. your great at convicting yourself.
the 'squibs' have not been 'debunked' anywhere. they are clearly visible on many video and photographic records. only an shill obfuscator pronounces, "case closed" when the case is barely open.
I'll let the rational reader judge for themselfs. It's obvious to anyone what this piece of crap is implying.
"Rick saw something which looked like a millitary rescue helicopter."
someone with the brains of newtesticle: CIA! FBI! Bush!!!
"What could those bright flashes be?"
someone with the brains of newtesticle: Bombs! What else could they be!
"what were those flashes coming from the helicopter"
someone with the brains of newtesticle: Bombs! Missiles! Nuke! Thermite!
So once again Newtesticle is resorting to personal attacks in the place of rational thought.
'round. "like a rescue".
That's AFTER he plants the idea in your head. Why would he mention it if it had nothing to do with CD? Use your head, why would he mention it if they dropped something? hummmmm...... Because hes trying to say they dropped a bomb or something. Missile, bomb, nuke, same shait. They dropped something no one else in the world saw. Yeah...
I'll leave it up to the people reading...
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 6 2006, 12:37 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 5 2006, 11:40 PM)
Sorry Newton.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...ses/squibs.html
no need to apologise. we can all be wrong, sometimes.
squibs have not been debunked.
you cannot 'debunk' for me something i have seen with mine own eyes.
i am not positive that the row of squibs seen in the famous tower seven video are actually squibs, but there are definitely squibs coming out of the big ones.
you can hear bombs in the 911eyewitness video. bombs sound like bombs. collapsing floors inside a building are likely barely audible from two miles away. the bombs are very loud.
there were definitely bombs.
Your now talking about the Twin Towers.
That's another topic which people have gone over and over.
Not interested in yet another pissing match on this one.
I was refering to Building 7.
with regards to seven, dust is ejected out all sides simultaneously at collapse initiation.
with regards to seven, if it was damaged on one side, why did it fall straight down?
with regards to seven, why did the steel structure offer less resistance than air would have(i think with air resistance, the fall time should be roughly 10 seconds).
and, why didn't the AIR offer much resistance? where did it go?
i am interesting in a pissing match.
people have gone over and over the kennedy assassination, and it has been proven over and over that there was more than one shooter, and that there was a cover-up. has anyone been brought to justice? has the investigation been reopened?
the LAME cointelpro excuse for the squibs coming out of the big towers, is that it was air compressed in a shaft.
well, the shafts are forty to sixty feet away from the edge of the building, making a 'laser focus' of air pressure IMPOSSIBLE.
so. maybe it needs to be gone over and over some more.
if there were bombs and squibs in one building, then it is no great stretch to postulate there may have been bombs and squibs in the others.
when one building falls with little resistance from even AIR, it is no great stretch to postulate that the high speed descent of the other two had similiar causes.
i wouldn't let this guy into the secret forum at scholars for truth. CSotts is obviously more interested in propping up the official story, than getting at the truth.
sorry, scott.
Here's another carefully edited quote from Jones
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
Yet Jones leaves this out the next paragraph:
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
I wonder why he left this out.
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
Yet Jones leaves this out the next paragraph:
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
I wonder why he left this out.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 6 2006, 12:50 AM)
I'll let the rational reader judge for themselfs. It's obvious to anyone what this piece of crap is implying.
"Rick saw something which looked like a millitary rescue helicopter."
someone with the brains of newtesticle: CIA! FBI! Bush!!!
"What could those bright flashes be?"
someone with the brains of newtesticle: Bombs! What else could they be!
"what were those flashes coming from the helicopter"
someone with the brains of newtesticle: Bombs! Missiles! Nuke! Thermite!
So once again Newtesticle is resorting to personal attacks in the place of rational thought.
'round. "like a rescue".
That's AFTER he plants the idea in your head. Why would he mention it if it had nothing to do with CD? Use your head, why would he mention it if they dropped something? hummmmm...... Because hes trying to say they dropped a bomb or something. Missile, bomb, nuke, same shait. They dropped something no one else in the world saw. Yeah...
I'll leave it up to the people reading...
this 'piece of crap'? who rick, or me? both, obviously.
once again, it's an honour to be insulted by you, so on behalf of the very brave and honourable rick, i say, "thanks".
you put the words in the wrong order.
you see military is modifying RESCUE, not HELICOPTER. anyway, rick was just some guy with a camera. why is he supposed to be infallible? why does it even MATTER? i personally wouldn't have added the word military, but it is a tiny detail, and mostly irrelevent.
i mean, you can HEAR BOMBS going off BEFORE the building even budges a little.
once again, the sound of debris collapsing INSIDE the building is masked, and has no where NEAR the energy of the collapse of the spire, which is OUTSIDE and MUCH MORE MASSIVE.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 01:01 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 6 2006, 12:37 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 5 2006, 11:40 PM)
Sorry Newton.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...ses/squibs.html
no need to apologise. we can all be wrong, sometimes.
squibs have not been debunked.
you cannot 'debunk' for me something i have seen with mine own eyes.
i am not positive that the row of squibs seen in the famous tower seven video are actually squibs, but there are definitely squibs coming out of the big ones.
you can hear bombs in the 911eyewitness video. bombs sound like bombs. collapsing floors inside a building are likely barely audible from two miles away. the bombs are very loud.
there were definitely bombs.
Your now talking about the Twin Towers.
That's another topic which people have gone over and over.
Not interested in yet another pissing match on this one.
I was refering to Building 7.
with regards to seven, dust is ejected out all sides simultaneously at collapse initiation.
with regards to seven, if it was damaged on one side, why did it fall straight down?
with regards to seven, why did the steel structure offer less resistance than air would have(i think with air resistance, the fall time should be roughly 10 seconds).
and, why didn't the AIR offer much resistance? where did it go?
i am interesting in a pissing match.
people have gone over and over the kennedy assassination, and it has been proven over and over that there was more than one shooter, and that there was a cover-up. has anyone been brought to justice? has the investigation been reopened?
the LAME cointelpro excuse for the squibs coming out of the big towers, is that it was air compressed in a shaft.
well, the shafts are forty to sixty feet away from the edge of the building, making a 'laser focus' of air pressure IMPOSSIBLE.
so. maybe it needs to be gone over and over some more.
if there were bombs and squibs in one building, then it is no great stretch to postulate there may have been bombs and squibs in the others.
when one building falls with little resistance from even AIR, it is no great stretch to postulate that the high speed descent of the other two had similiar causes.
i wouldn't let this guy into the secret forum at scholars for truth. CSotts is obviously more interested in propping up the official story, than getting at the truth.
sorry, scott.
I CAN see your interested in a pissing match. Nothing good will come of it, anything I present will be for the most part rejected. I am also still researching just as many of us are.
If I have errored in my research in any way please point this out and I will check it out. If I point out errors in Jones paper then they should be considered. The methodogy should be considered.
Please.
Less time than air?? I am interesting in seeing more on this claim.
I haven't considered the fall time really in question as is the symetical type collapse.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 5 2006, 08:18 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 6 2006, 12:50 AM)
I'll let the rational reader judge for themselfs. It's obvious to anyone what this piece of crap is implying.
"Rick saw something which looked like a millitary rescue helicopter."
someone with the brains of newtesticle: CIA! FBI! Bush!!!
"What could those bright flashes be?"
someone with the brains of newtesticle: Bombs! What else could they be!
"what were those flashes coming from the helicopter"
someone with the brains of newtesticle: Bombs! Missiles! Nuke! Thermite!
So once again Newtesticle is resorting to personal attacks in the place of rational thought.
'round. "like a rescue".
That's AFTER he plants the idea in your head. Why would he mention it if it had nothing to do with CD? Use your head, why would he mention it if they dropped something? hummmmm...... Because hes trying to say they dropped a bomb or something. Missile, bomb, nuke, same shait. They dropped something no one else in the world saw. Yeah...
I'll leave it up to the people reading...
this 'piece of crap'? who rick, or me? both, obviously.
once again, it's an honour to be insulted by you, so on behalf of the very brave and honourable rick, i say, "thanks".
you put the words in the wrong order.
you see military is modifying RESCUE, not HELICOPTER. anyway, rick was just some guy with a camera. why is he supposed to be infallible? why does it even MATTER? i personally wouldn't have added the word military, but it is a tiny detail, and mostly irrelevent.
i mean, you can HEAR BOMBS going off BEFORE the building even budges a little.
once again, the sound of debris collapsing INSIDE the building is masked, and has no where NEAR the energy of the collapse of the spire, which is OUTSIDE and MUCH MORE MASSIVE.
Yeah, right, I started with the "C-Spam" right... Your credibility has collapsed from self CD.
QUOTE
Here's another carefully edited quote from Jones
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
Yet Jones leaves this out the next paragraph:
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
I wonder why he left this out.
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
Yet Jones leaves this out the next paragraph:
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
I wonder why he left this out.
Probably because it doesn't offer any real quantitative arguement that the temperature gradients would produce "yield-level" stresses.
For the record though, I agree with you about the WTC7 squibs. I would like to see this removed from the paper.
I also wish 9/11 Eyewitness did not comment on the flashing helicopter. The rest of the film is excellent, but that is a very sloppy moment.
newton does make a good point that needs answering - what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 5 2006, 10:40 PM)
He has a nasty habit of misrepresenting all of these sources. Tell him also that his Leslie Robertson is incorrect regarding molten metal.
Leslie stated
"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."
That was complete bull$hit Robertson never said it Jones must have reading comprehension problems. The source of this disinformation is a misreading of a newsletter published by the Structural Engineers Association of Utah from Oct. 2001. James M.Williams, SEAU's president, wrote about Robertson's presentation to the association on OCT 5 in which of course he talked about the collapse. After a few paragraphs William's wrote, "Following are some other interesting facts you may not know." and he mentions a dozen or so factoids including one about molten steel. He never said or implied that Robertson said those things.
Leslie stated
"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."
That was complete bull$hit Robertson never said it Jones must have reading comprehension problems. The source of this disinformation is a misreading of a newsletter published by the Structural Engineers Association of Utah from Oct. 2001. James M.Williams, SEAU's president, wrote about Robertson's presentation to the association on OCT 5 in which of course he talked about the collapse. After a few paragraphs William's wrote, "Following are some other interesting facts you may not know." and he mentions a dozen or so factoids including one about molten steel. He never said or implied that Robertson said those things.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 6 2006, 01:32 AM)
QUOTE
Here's another carefully edited quote from Jones
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
Yet Jones leaves this out the next paragraph:
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
I wonder why he left this out.
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
Yet Jones leaves this out the next paragraph:
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
I wonder why he left this out.
Probably because it doesn't offer any real quantitative arguement that the temperature gradients would produce "yield-level" stresses.
For the record though, I agree with you about the WTC7 squibs. I would like to see this removed from the paper.
I also wish 9/11 Eyewitness did not comment on the flashing helicopter. The rest of the film is excellent, but that is a very sloppy moment.
newton does make a good point that needs answering - what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
Thats fine if you disagree with any real quantitative arguement here, however by not including this information, it gives a false impression of Edgars views. His explaination is removed.
Thanks for the agreement on the squibs.
As to your claim:
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
I would ask that you give me the same as you wanted from Edgars paper.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 6 2006, 01:32 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 5 2006, 10:40 PM)
He has a nasty habit of misrepresenting all of these sources. Tell him also that his Leslie Robertson is incorrect regarding molten metal.
Leslie stated
"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."
That was complete bull$hit Robertson never said it Jones must have reading comprehension problems. The source of this disinformation is a misreading of a newsletter published by the Structural Engineers Association of Utah from Oct. 2001. James M.Williams, SEAU's president, wrote about Robertson's presentation to the association on OCT 5 in which of course he talked about the collapse. After a few paragraphs William's wrote, "Following are some other interesting facts you may not know." and he mentions a dozen or so factoids including one about molten steel. He never said or implied that Robertson said those things.
While I suspected the error I couldn't be sure until now.
I hope Jones is taking notes for his metal presentation on Fri. It should be no wonder why people question his views.
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
I would ask that you give me the same as you wanted from Edgars paper.
i thought you weren't interested in a pissing match? show me yours, and i'll show you mine?
the energy required to make sound, and the propogation of sound through different mediums is more PROOF, just as the demolition waves passing freefalling debris down the side of the tower is proof, just as the squibs are proof.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=80112
Just as a sidenote... I have found it quite comical to sit back (for a change) and watch the wranglings and twisted logic of these OCTS --- attempting desperately to find 'alternative' conclusions for the molten metal "pouring" from the northeast corner of WTC 2.
Maybe it was 'transformers' ?
Maybe it was a 'thermite' reaction caused by aircraft aluminum in conjunction with rusted steel?
Maybe it was acid rain acting on the steel?
Maybe... Maybe...
Maybe... it was ANYTHING, other than explosive incendiaries...
quick, bring out the chemistry / alchemy textbooks and find two compounds which we can trace to being present 'in the mix'... then let's put them together in a highly unlikely manner and conclude that 'we' have 'debunked' the explosives theory.
Pure Sophistry...
"Let's avoid the NIST report which tells us that only minutes BEFORE this molten metal began to 'pour' from the northeast corner there was a still UNEXPLAINED METAL FIRE at that northeast corner, (which was clearly visible for miles and whose luminescence was far beyond the luminescent signature of the aircraft/debris fire."
The rectangular shape of this "metal fire" certainly DOES NOT indicate titanium wheel hubs or other circular magnesium alloy (etc) metal objects... such as motor parts made of super-alloys which 'caught fire' and created this image. It should ALSO be noted that this 'metal-fire' (as described by NIST) occured shortly BEFORE ... (within a few minutes) that molten metal began "Pouring" from the NE corner.
So, the OCT's Ignore this 'metal fire' and proceed to attempting to debunk the reasons for molten metal pouring from the NE corner, by coming up with other sophist plausibilities / possibilities for the cause of the molten metal.
This anomalous 'metal fire' unquestionably led to the extreme temperatures required to melt metal, yet the OCT's wish to ignore / dismiss this metal fire and look for other 'plausible/possible' explanations (and in doing so also depart from the evidence contained in the NIST reports themselves.
To refresh everyones memory of what NIST actually claims about this anomalous 'metal fire' see this page...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
OR...
refer to the entire document...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
I would ask that you give me the same as you wanted from Edgars paper.
i thought you weren't interested in a pissing match? show me yours, and i'll shoiw you mine?
the energy required to make sound, and the propogation of sound through different mediums is more PROOF, just as the demolition waves passing freefalling debris down the side of the tower is proof, just as the squibs are proof.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
i thought you weren't interested in a pissing match?
OK, I won't post for a while. You should see if Jones will add that to his paper.
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
I would ask that you give me the same as you wanted from Edgars paper.
i thought you weren't interested in a pissing match? show me yours, and i'll show you mine?
the energy required to make sound, and the propogation of sound through different mediums is more PROOF, just as the demolition waves passing freefalling debris down the side of the tower is proof, just as the squibs are proof.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh please!!!
With all the high resolution stills and video clips of the collapses you want to prove something with that super blurry image? What about the much clearer images of debris out racing the collapse.
The faster than free fall time collapse theory returns! How exactly do you explain such a phenomina? Was it the hand of God or is it the explosion induced vaccum sucked them down theory?
Leslie stated
"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."
That was complete bull$hit Robertson never said it Jones must have reading comprehension problems. The source of this disinformation is a misreading of a newsletter published by the Structural Engineers Association of Utah from Oct. 2001. James M.Williams, SEAU's president, wrote about Robertson's presentation to the association on OCT 5 in which of course he talked about the collapse. After a few paragraphs William's wrote, "Following are some other interesting facts you may not know." and he mentions a dozen or so factoids including one about molten steel. He never said or implied that Robertson said those things.
While I suspected the error I couldn't be sure until now.
I hope Jones is taking notes for his metal presentation on Fri. It should be no wonder why people question his views.
Scott,
I think you would be a good asset. You can try contacting greglopreato@yahoo.com to ask for access to the guest forum.
QUOTE
Could I join the scholarsfor911truth secret forum?
I think you would be a good asset. You can try contacting greglopreato@yahoo.com to ask for access to the guest forum.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 6 2006, 01:44 AM)
Scott,
I think you would be a good asset. You can try contacting greglopreato@yahoo.com to ask for access to the guest forum.
OK I will. However the site states:
Membership is a privilege, not a right. Should either of the chairs conclude that an individual's participation tends to undermine the objectives of the society, that person's membership may be suspended and s/he may no longer access the forum or be identified with S9/11T.
Will my information be considered "undermine the objectives of the society"
QUOTE
Could I join the scholarsfor911truth secret forum?
I think you would be a good asset. You can try contacting greglopreato@yahoo.com to ask for access to the guest forum.
OK I will. However the site states:
Membership is a privilege, not a right. Should either of the chairs conclude that an individual's participation tends to undermine the objectives of the society, that person's membership may be suspended and s/he may no longer access the forum or be identified with S9/11T.
Will my information be considered "undermine the objectives of the society"
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 6 2006, 01:30 AM)
Less time than air?? I am interesting in seeing more on this claim.
I was wondering about that one myself, even if explosives were used that wouldn't cause the building to collapse faster than the free fall + air resistance delay time. 10 seconds is the time the CDT's say it took the towers which were twice as tall to collapse.
Newton it seems adopted a rather inapt screen name.
Newton please provide a reference for this. Also you never answered my question about the folding money do you think:
1) this was an inside joke by the Illuminati who had been planning this at least since 1998 or
2) there is some mystical explanation or
3) it's a strange coincidence?
I was wondering about that one myself, even if explosives were used that wouldn't cause the building to collapse faster than the free fall + air resistance delay time. 10 seconds is the time the CDT's say it took the towers which were twice as tall to collapse.
Newton it seems adopted a rather inapt screen name.
Newton please provide a reference for this. Also you never answered my question about the folding money do you think:
1) this was an inside joke by the Illuminati who had been planning this at least since 1998 or
2) there is some mystical explanation or
3) it's a strange coincidence?
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 6 2006, 01:40 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+)
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
I would ask that you give me the same as you wanted from Edgars paper.
i thought you weren't interested in a pissing match? show me yours, and i'll show you mine?
the energy required to make sound, and the propogation of sound through different mediums is more PROOF, just as the demolition waves passing freefalling debris down the side of the tower is proof, just as the squibs are proof.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Since Gorden and others mentioned it, today I found a little time to go web trawling with regard to 'molten aluminum concrete'. Here is a quick summary of what I found, but which I have neither the theory nor practical experience of my own to verify:
Molten aluminum is highly reactive, but ordinarily quickly forms a "skin" of aluminum oxide. If the skin breaks then a local reaction will occur with oxygen in the air, with concrete, and many other ordinary substances. With concrete, the water of hydration of the cement is consumed by the aluminum, producing aluminum oxide and evolving hydrogen. With sufficient elevated temperatures, the hydrogen burns in air, this doesn't take much, but I don't have then number. This reaction is itself exothermic, irrespective of the hydrogen. Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag coated with a white aluminum oxide ash, which serves to insulate and contain the molten aluminum puddle or splash.
In foundry work with molten aluminum, safe practice requires never pouring on a concrete floor. Any spills spall the concrete, sending concrete fragments and molten metal splashes with sufficient force to penetrate any practicable safety clothing.
In the case of the melt on about the 80th floor of WTC 2, this is approximately the location of the remains of the aircraft. While offering no conjecture as to the source of the heat, the color of the flowing melt is consistent with a mixture of aluminum with many other refractory materials, heating to "yellow hot". This temperature is not sufficient to melt steel, which needs to be "yellow-white hot". The most straightforward explanation, imho, is that the melt running out the window is a highly impure mixture of molten aluminum with an unknown composition of other, refractory materials.
Molten aluminum is highly reactive, but ordinarily quickly forms a "skin" of aluminum oxide. If the skin breaks then a local reaction will occur with oxygen in the air, with concrete, and many other ordinary substances. With concrete, the water of hydration of the cement is consumed by the aluminum, producing aluminum oxide and evolving hydrogen. With sufficient elevated temperatures, the hydrogen burns in air, this doesn't take much, but I don't have then number. This reaction is itself exothermic, irrespective of the hydrogen. Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag coated with a white aluminum oxide ash, which serves to insulate and contain the molten aluminum puddle or splash.
In foundry work with molten aluminum, safe practice requires never pouring on a concrete floor. Any spills spall the concrete, sending concrete fragments and molten metal splashes with sufficient force to penetrate any practicable safety clothing.
In the case of the melt on about the 80th floor of WTC 2, this is approximately the location of the remains of the aircraft. While offering no conjecture as to the source of the heat, the color of the flowing melt is consistent with a mixture of aluminum with many other refractory materials, heating to "yellow hot". This temperature is not sufficient to melt steel, which needs to be "yellow-white hot". The most straightforward explanation, imho, is that the melt running out the window is a highly impure mixture of molten aluminum with an unknown composition of other, refractory materials.
QUOTE
by Gordon
Aluminium which is just molten is silver. If you want it to be orange you have to keep heating it. In the unlikely event that the fire was hot enough to allow this temperature to be reached, the aluminium must have spent some time being heated and coming together as a liquid pool in order for it to then pour out of the window. In the OTC we are told that a sagging of the floor allowed this to happen, with subsequent floor connection failures then allowing the pool to fall out of the window.
However, molten aluminium at that temperature would cause the concrete floors which they contacted to explode. This is due to the water content rather than explosive capability.
There is no evidence of this happening but again shows how much the OTC can stretch some scientific facts to cover more eventualities than others should or would dare to try.
Gordon.
Aluminium which is just molten is silver. If you want it to be orange you have to keep heating it. In the unlikely event that the fire was hot enough to allow this temperature to be reached, the aluminium must have spent some time being heated and coming together as a liquid pool in order for it to then pour out of the window. In the OTC we are told that a sagging of the floor allowed this to happen, with subsequent floor connection failures then allowing the pool to fall out of the window.
However, molten aluminium at that temperature would cause the concrete floors which they contacted to explode. This is due to the water content rather than explosive capability.
There is no evidence of this happening but again shows how much the OTC can stretch some scientific facts to cover more eventualities than others should or would dare to try.
Gordon.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=80112
Just as a sidenote... I have found it quite comical to sit back (for a change) and watch the wranglings and twisted logic of these OCTS --- attempting desperately to find 'alternative' conclusions for the molten metal "pouring" from the northeast corner of WTC 2.
Maybe it was 'transformers' ?
Maybe it was a 'thermite' reaction caused by aircraft aluminum in conjunction with rusted steel?
Maybe it was acid rain acting on the steel?
Maybe... Maybe...
Maybe... it was ANYTHING, other than explosive incendiaries...
quick, bring out the chemistry / alchemy textbooks and find two compounds which we can trace to being present 'in the mix'... then let's put them together in a highly unlikely manner and conclude that 'we' have 'debunked' the explosives theory.
Pure Sophistry...
"Let's avoid the NIST report which tells us that only minutes BEFORE this molten metal began to 'pour' from the northeast corner there was a still UNEXPLAINED METAL FIRE at that northeast corner, (which was clearly visible for miles and whose luminescence was far beyond the luminescent signature of the aircraft/debris fire."
The rectangular shape of this "metal fire" certainly DOES NOT indicate titanium wheel hubs or other circular magnesium alloy (etc) metal objects... such as motor parts made of super-alloys which 'caught fire' and created this image. It should ALSO be noted that this 'metal-fire' (as described by NIST) occured shortly BEFORE ... (within a few minutes) that molten metal began "Pouring" from the NE corner.
So, the OCT's Ignore this 'metal fire' and proceed to attempting to debunk the reasons for molten metal pouring from the NE corner, by coming up with other sophist plausibilities / possibilities for the cause of the molten metal.
This anomalous 'metal fire' unquestionably led to the extreme temperatures required to melt metal, yet the OCT's wish to ignore / dismiss this metal fire and look for other 'plausible/possible' explanations (and in doing so also depart from the evidence contained in the NIST reports themselves.
To refresh everyones memory of what NIST actually claims about this anomalous 'metal fire' see this page...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
OR...
refer to the entire document...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
QUOTE (newton+Apr 4 2006, 06:51 AM)
plato was DEFINITELY the man.
i haven't read republic.
i don't like being bossed around by IDIOTS, though, LOL!
i know 'the cave' synopsis from one class i took.
but what i find most fascinating, is the platonic solids, and how they relate to cymatics.
the platonic solids are unique(as far as i know) in their ability to appear exactly the same in two dimensions, as in three(minus relativity, that is. it's not like you can take a picture 'out of time'). energy takes the shortest route.
and the heirarchy of angels, may be a high arc of angles, lol.
i think some people get a little "hopeful" when realising the shape of underlying order. "as above, so below", er whatever?
however, the basic TRUTH of platonic solids are here...mind blowing
plato was also the guy who did reductions, like 1998=1+9+9+8=27=2+7=9
math is the truth. english is an imposter.
some people are way cool.
but what i find most fascinating, is the platonic solids, and how they relate to cymatics.
How are they related, isn't cymatics the study of wave patterns
plato was also the guy who did reductions, like 1998=1+9+9+8=27=2+7=9
If you're talking about the famous Plato who lived and died a few hundered years before Christ this is a rather dubious claim. The Greek numeral system was similar (but more soohphisticated than) the Roman one. Such reductions would not have been possible.
i haven't read republic.
i don't like being bossed around by IDIOTS, though, LOL!
i know 'the cave' synopsis from one class i took.
but what i find most fascinating, is the platonic solids, and how they relate to cymatics.
the platonic solids are unique(as far as i know) in their ability to appear exactly the same in two dimensions, as in three(minus relativity, that is. it's not like you can take a picture 'out of time'). energy takes the shortest route.
and the heirarchy of angels, may be a high arc of angles, lol.
i think some people get a little "hopeful" when realising the shape of underlying order. "as above, so below", er whatever?
however, the basic TRUTH of platonic solids are here...mind blowing
plato was also the guy who did reductions, like 1998=1+9+9+8=27=2+7=9
math is the truth. english is an imposter.
some people are way cool.
but what i find most fascinating, is the platonic solids, and how they relate to cymatics.
How are they related, isn't cymatics the study of wave patterns
plato was also the guy who did reductions, like 1998=1+9+9+8=27=2+7=9
If you're talking about the famous Plato who lived and died a few hundered years before Christ this is a rather dubious claim. The Greek numeral system was similar (but more soohphisticated than) the Roman one. Such reductions would not have been possible.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 01:52 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 6 2006, 01:40 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+)
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
I would ask that you give me the same as you wanted from Edgars paper.
i thought you weren't interested in a pissing match? show me yours, and i'll shoiw you mine?
the energy required to make sound, and the propogation of sound through different mediums is more PROOF, just as the demolition waves passing freefalling debris down the side of the tower is proof, just as the squibs are proof.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
i thought you weren't interested in a pissing match?
OK, I won't post for a while. You should see if Jones will add that to his paper.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 01:52 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 6 2006, 01:40 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+)
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
I would ask that you give me the same as you wanted from Edgars paper.
i thought you weren't interested in a pissing match? show me yours, and i'll show you mine?
the energy required to make sound, and the propogation of sound through different mediums is more PROOF, just as the demolition waves passing freefalling debris down the side of the tower is proof, just as the squibs are proof.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh please!!!
With all the high resolution stills and video clips of the collapses you want to prove something with that super blurry image? What about the much clearer images of debris out racing the collapse.
The faster than free fall time collapse theory returns! How exactly do you explain such a phenomina? Was it the hand of God or is it the explosion induced vaccum sucked them down theory?
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 6 2006, 01:48 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 6 2006, 01:30 AM)
Less time than air?? I am interesting in seeing more on this claim.
I was wondering about that one myself, even if explosives were used that wouldn't cause the building to collapse faster than the free fall + air resistance delay time. 10 seconds is the time the CDT's say it took the towers which were twice as tall to collapse.
Newton it seems adopted a rather inapt screen name.
Newton please provide a reference for this. Also you never answered my question about the folding money do you think:
1) this was an inside joke by the Illuminati who had been planning this at least since 1998 or
2) there is some mystical explanation or
3) it's a strange coincidence?
explosions blow the most of the air out of the building. that's why there is little resistance from air.
in 911eyewitness, rick siegel showed that tower seven fell the first 100 meters at the rate of gravity in a vacuum.
professor jones did a ROUGH calculation that predicted tower seven would take ten seconds with air resistance. it's in one of his lectures available as an mpg. (sorry if i don't hand hold every body all the way into the light. people who care will find it. that's game theory)
tower seven fell in 6.5 or 6.6 seconds.
steve jackson knows more about the illuminti than i do, by leaps and bounds.
check 'chez2000.com' for some cool math.
see 'codeufo.com' and the 'matrix of nine grek 5 pyramid' for more.
as far as the folding of money goes.
it works.
try it.
there is an all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. that is the symbol of the illuminati. period.
many of the objects on the dollar bill come in groups of thirteen.
this is not a theory. what you make of it is.
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
I would ask that you give me the same as you wanted from Edgars paper.
i thought you weren't interested in a pissing match? show me yours, and i'll show you mine?
the energy required to make sound, and the propogation of sound through different mediums is more PROOF, just as the demolition waves passing freefalling debris down the side of the tower is proof, just as the squibs are proof.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh please!!!
With all the high resolution stills and video clips of the collapses you want to prove something with that super blurry image? What about the much clearer images of debris out racing the collapse.
The faster than free fall time collapse theory returns! How exactly do you explain such a phenomina? Was it the hand of God or is it the explosion induced vaccum sucked them down theory?
the timing of the explosions is not 'falling'. the timed explosions outpace the freefalling debris down the side of the building.
that blurry video frame clearly shows debris being ejected below debris which was ejected into air several floors above the collapse front. the collapse front passes the freefalling debris. that is what is 'faster than freefall'. obviously NOTHING falls 'naturally' faster than freefall. i never said it did.
i say the timing of the explosions outraces the freefalling debris. as the freefalling debris picks up speed, the timing of the explosions is 'left in the dust'. it is at the beginning of the collapse that the timing of the explosions travels down the side of the building faster than the freefalling debris.
understand?
I was wondering about that one myself, even if explosives were used that wouldn't cause the building to collapse faster than the free fall + air resistance delay time. 10 seconds is the time the CDT's say it took the towers which were twice as tall to collapse.
Newton it seems adopted a rather inapt screen name.
Newton please provide a reference for this. Also you never answered my question about the folding money do you think:
1) this was an inside joke by the Illuminati who had been planning this at least since 1998 or
2) there is some mystical explanation or
3) it's a strange coincidence?
explosions blow the most of the air out of the building. that's why there is little resistance from air.
in 911eyewitness, rick siegel showed that tower seven fell the first 100 meters at the rate of gravity in a vacuum.
professor jones did a ROUGH calculation that predicted tower seven would take ten seconds with air resistance. it's in one of his lectures available as an mpg. (sorry if i don't hand hold every body all the way into the light. people who care will find it. that's game theory)
tower seven fell in 6.5 or 6.6 seconds.
steve jackson knows more about the illuminti than i do, by leaps and bounds.
check 'chez2000.com' for some cool math.
see 'codeufo.com' and the 'matrix of nine grek 5 pyramid' for more.
as far as the folding of money goes.
it works.
try it.
there is an all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. that is the symbol of the illuminati. period.
many of the objects on the dollar bill come in groups of thirteen.
this is not a theory. what you make of it is.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 6 2006, 02:14 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 01:52 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 6 2006, 01:40 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+)
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
I would ask that you give me the same as you wanted from Edgars paper.
i thought you weren't interested in a pissing match? show me yours, and i'll show you mine?
the energy required to make sound, and the propogation of sound through different mediums is more PROOF, just as the demolition waves passing freefalling debris down the side of the tower is proof, just as the squibs are proof.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh please!!!
With all the high resolution stills and video clips of the collapses you want to prove something with that super blurry image? What about the much clearer images of debris out racing the collapse.
The faster than free fall time collapse theory returns! How exactly do you explain such a phenomina? Was it the hand of God or is it the explosion induced vaccum sucked them down theory?
the timing of the explosions is not 'falling'. the timed explosions outpace the freefalling debris down the side of the building.
that blurry video frame clearly shows debris being ejected below debris which was ejected into air several floors above the collapse front. the collapse front passes the freefalling debris. that is what is 'faster than freefall'. obviously NOTHING falls 'naturally' faster than freefall. i never said it did.
i say the timing of the explosions outraces the freefalling debris. as the freefalling debris picks up speed, the timing of the explosions is 'left in the dust'. it is at the beginning of the collapse that the timing of the explosions travels down the side of the building faster than the freefalling debris.
understand?
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 02:30 AM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 6 2006, 01:48 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 6 2006, 01:30 AM)
Less time than air?? I am interesting in seeing more on this claim.
I was wondering about that one myself, even if explosives were used that wouldn't cause the building to collapse faster than the free fall + air resistance delay time. 10 seconds is the time the CDT's say it took the towers which were twice as tall to collapse.
Newton it seems adopted a rather inapt screen name.
Newton please provide a reference for this. Also you never answered my question about the folding money do you think:
1) this was an inside joke by the Illuminati who had been planning this at least since 1998 or
2) there is some mystical explanation or
3) it's a strange coincidence?
explosions blow the most of the air out of the building. that's why there is little resistance from air.
in 911eyewitness, rick siegel showed that tower seven fell the first 100 meters at the rate of gravity in a vacuum.
professor jones did a ROUGH calculation that predicted tower seven would take ten seconds with air resistance. it's in one of his lectures available as an mpg. (sorry if i don't hand hold every body all the way into the light. people who care will find it. that's game theory)
tower seven fell in 6.5 or 6.6 seconds.
steve jackson knows more about the illuminti than i do, by leaps and bounds.
check 'chez2000.com' for some cool math.
see 'codeufo.com' and the 'matrix of nine grek 5 pyramid' for more.
as far as the folding of money goes.
it works.
try it.
there is an all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. that is the symbol of the illuminati. period.
many of the objects on the dollar bill come in groups of thirteen.
this is not a theory. what you make of it is.
Wow based on Jones' calculations, now I'm convinced. I guess all those years doing research into cold fusion thought him how to calculated collapse time better than structural and forensic engineers! LOL
Please provide a reference that supports the suck'm down explodo-vacuum theory. LOL
You really believe in the Illuminati, that's funny, I'm sure it amuses Robert Anton Wilson to no end that people take that stuff seriously (yes I know the theories predate him).
there is an all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. that is the symbol of the illuminati. period.
it's also considered to be a sign of enlightenment. Have you ever heard of a band called the 13th Floor Elevators? They adopted the pyramid as their symbol and it appeared on the cover of their first album. They dropped lots of acid and smoked lots of pot. Do you think they were part of the Illuminati too?
as far as the folding of money goes.
it works.
try it.
You didn't give a straight answer to the question but seem like you support option 1, My vote is for 3, The resulting images often bear only a vague resemblance to the events of 9/11. Does this only work with 1998 bills?
many of the objects on the dollar bill come in groups of thirteen
ROTFLMHO!!!!! uuuh as Woody Woodpecker would say Haaaahaaahaaaa Haaaahaaahaaaa huuuuuh!
So do the stripes on the flag that's because of the 13 original states
I have a new theory for you Bantam and Doubleday Books are run by satanists, their headquarters is located at 666 Fifth Av. after all!
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
There is no way to determine if the sounds come from the towers or another, closer source such as the waterfront in the foreground.
I was wondering about that one myself, even if explosives were used that wouldn't cause the building to collapse faster than the free fall + air resistance delay time. 10 seconds is the time the CDT's say it took the towers which were twice as tall to collapse.
Newton it seems adopted a rather inapt screen name.
Newton please provide a reference for this. Also you never answered my question about the folding money do you think:
1) this was an inside joke by the Illuminati who had been planning this at least since 1998 or
2) there is some mystical explanation or
3) it's a strange coincidence?
explosions blow the most of the air out of the building. that's why there is little resistance from air.
in 911eyewitness, rick siegel showed that tower seven fell the first 100 meters at the rate of gravity in a vacuum.
professor jones did a ROUGH calculation that predicted tower seven would take ten seconds with air resistance. it's in one of his lectures available as an mpg. (sorry if i don't hand hold every body all the way into the light. people who care will find it. that's game theory)
tower seven fell in 6.5 or 6.6 seconds.
steve jackson knows more about the illuminti than i do, by leaps and bounds.
check 'chez2000.com' for some cool math.
see 'codeufo.com' and the 'matrix of nine grek 5 pyramid' for more.
as far as the folding of money goes.
it works.
try it.
there is an all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. that is the symbol of the illuminati. period.
many of the objects on the dollar bill come in groups of thirteen.
this is not a theory. what you make of it is.
Wow based on Jones' calculations, now I'm convinced. I guess all those years doing research into cold fusion thought him how to calculated collapse time better than structural and forensic engineers! LOL
Please provide a reference that supports the suck'm down explodo-vacuum theory. LOL
You really believe in the Illuminati, that's funny, I'm sure it amuses Robert Anton Wilson to no end that people take that stuff seriously (yes I know the theories predate him).
there is an all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. that is the symbol of the illuminati. period.
it's also considered to be a sign of enlightenment. Have you ever heard of a band called the 13th Floor Elevators? They adopted the pyramid as their symbol and it appeared on the cover of their first album. They dropped lots of acid and smoked lots of pot. Do you think they were part of the Illuminati too?
as far as the folding of money goes.
it works.
try it.
You didn't give a straight answer to the question but seem like you support option 1, My vote is for 3, The resulting images often bear only a vague resemblance to the events of 9/11. Does this only work with 1998 bills?
many of the objects on the dollar bill come in groups of thirteen
ROTFLMHO!!!!! uuuh as Woody Woodpecker would say Haaaahaaahaaaa Haaaahaaahaaaa huuuuuh!
So do the stripes on the flag that's because of the 13 original states
I have a new theory for you Bantam and Doubleday Books are run by satanists, their headquarters is located at 666 Fifth Av. after all!
QUOTE (newtonnjd+)
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
There is no way to determine if the sounds come from the towers or another, closer source such as the waterfront in the foreground.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+)
the energy required to make sound, and the propogation of sound through different mediums is more PROOF, just as the demolition waves passing freefalling debris down the side of the tower is proof, just as the squibs are proof.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Already adressed newton
What the h4ll is that? What are the axis in the graph representing? What scales are being used?
It has already been established that NOTHING CAN FALL FASTER than free fall unless there is another force acting in the same direction.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Already adressed newton
What the h4ll is that? What are the axis in the graph representing? What scales are being used?
It has already been established that NOTHING CAN FALL FASTER than free fall unless there is another force acting in the same direction.
well, here's another funny one.
the zip code 60666 is the address of the owners of a plane used on september eleventh.
early christians wore a 'magic amulet' which was a six by six grid where all the numbers in any row or column gives the sum, 111, so the total of the square is 666.
that's 1+2+3+....35+36=666
the washington monument is 555.5 ft. high, by 55 ft. it represents the phallus of osiris.
exactly the same as the one in vatican square.
666 is written on the throne of paul?
the c.n. tower has 1776 steps.
the new WTC is supposed to be 1776 ft. high.
it's not 616. that's disinfo.
the zip code 60666 is the address of the owners of a plane used on september eleventh.
early christians wore a 'magic amulet' which was a six by six grid where all the numbers in any row or column gives the sum, 111, so the total of the square is 666.
that's 1+2+3+....35+36=666
the washington monument is 555.5 ft. high, by 55 ft. it represents the phallus of osiris.
exactly the same as the one in vatican square.
666 is written on the throne of paul?
the c.n. tower has 1776 steps.
the new WTC is supposed to be 1776 ft. high.
it's not 616. that's disinfo.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 5 2006, 10:39 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 5 2006, 10:33 PM)
Concrete CAN explode with aluminum pouring on to it. This is a possibility. Depends on how much water is in it and otehr factors. I'll be happy to continue researching.
If it can explode that is irrelevant, he said it would explode as if were a certainty. If exploding concrete were only a possibility it proves nothing.
Len
Well, this is a scream! You've glossed over the the not insignificant detail that science fundamentally deals with probabilities, and the goal is to approach probability 1.0, and stay away from probability 0.0.
I've noticed this trait in popes (as well as the unscientific, thought it seems to be deliberate with most of the popes) again and again.
So what probability would you guess that molten aluminum, pooling on top of concrete of the type that was present in the part of the WTC tower, in question, would not explode the concrete? .001? .0000001? Do tell.
More importantly: You do understand the significance of the question, don't you?
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
There is no way to determine if the sounds come from the towers or another, closer source such as the waterfront in the foreground.
If it can explode that is irrelevant, he said it would explode as if were a certainty. If exploding concrete were only a possibility it proves nothing.
Len
Well, this is a scream! You've glossed over the the not insignificant detail that science fundamentally deals with probabilities, and the goal is to approach probability 1.0, and stay away from probability 0.0.
I've noticed this trait in popes (as well as the unscientific, thought it seems to be deliberate with most of the popes) again and again.
So what probability would you guess that molten aluminum, pooling on top of concrete of the type that was present in the part of the WTC tower, in question, would not explode the concrete? .001? .0000001? Do tell.
More importantly: You do understand the significance of the question, don't you?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 6 2006, 03:54 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+)
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
There is no way to determine if the sounds come from the towers or another, closer source such as the waterfront in the foreground.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+)
the energy required to make sound, and the propogation of sound through different mediums is more PROOF, just as the demolition waves passing freefalling debris down the side of the tower is proof, just as the squibs are proof.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Already adressed newton
What the h4ll is that? What are the axis in the graph representing? What scales are being used?
It has already been established that NOTHING CAN FALL FASTER than free fall unless there is another force acting in the same direction.
yes. nothing can fall faster than freefall. agreed.
what the graph shows, is a linear plot, against the plot of an acceleration.
the linear plot represents the timing of the demolition charges.
the curve shows the acceleration of gravity.
it doesn't really need numbers.
unless you're thick.
boom boom.
boom.
bm.
m.
If what you say is true then all it really needs then is some basis by which to show demolition charges going off in a fashion that matchs this laughable graph. So far you got squat other than dust billows from a few windows here and there.
However I direct your attention to what is printed on the graph
"Building Faster Than Free Fall"
and the linear trace labeled
"Building Collapse Speed"
Both of which show an intention to illustrate that the building fell faster than free fall for some time and not that a string of demolition charges were set off.. (unless you wish to admit the producer of the graph is, as you put it, thick)
A rectangular opening showing a fire behind the columns rather than something rectangular stuck to the outside of the column seems likely.
If what you say is true then all it really needs then is some basis by which to show demolition charges going off in a fashion that matchs this laughable graph. So far you got squat other than dust billows from a few windows here and there.
However I direct your attention to what is printed on the graph
"Building Faster Than Free Fall"
and the linear trace labeled
"Building Collapse Speed"
Both of which show an intention to illustrate that the building fell faster than free fall for some time and not that a string of demolition charges were set off.. (unless you wish to admit the producer of the graph is, as you put it, thick)
okay, it's becoming obvious that you're having a mental block of some sort.
i don't say anything FELL faster than freefall.
okay?
A rectangular opening showing a fire behind the columns rather than something rectangular stuck to the outside of the column seems likely.
good point.
so, whatever it is that is white hot, is actually larger and more energetic than what we can directly observe. should we infer that the white hot patch is melting the corner supports above it? and maybe above that?
i mean white hot IS molten for ANY metal, isn't it?
No, it states that deformities resulted from unequal heating which in turn contributed to the collapse.
No, it states that deformities resulted from unequal heating which in turn contributed to the collapse.
The towers exterior tube framework was very much in equalibrium so expansion stress was transferred to connecting members way before deformities could cause failures
Assumes that large areas with deformities could transfer stresses forever.
On several floors the floor had sagged due to loss of integrity at impact either due to having connections broken or by having the floor concrete and trusses damaged by impact. Certainly on those levels the ability to transfer even more loading due to heat induced deformity was severely limited from the beginning.(a point at which the normal equilibrium of the core-floor-perimeter system was significantly disturbed)
Not neccessarily. All it need be is bright enough to cause the recording to register as bright white as it is able to throughout that area. The source behind the opening need not be that much larger than the opening.
Not neccessarily. All it need be is bright enough to cause the recording to register as bright white as it is able to throughout that area. The source behind the opening need not be that much larger than the opening.
and yet, that area is in shadow, and there is a source of light(the flame) outside the building, not to mention the sun. so, it is definitely something white hot.
No, it states that deformities resulted from unequal heating which in turn contributed to the collapse.
No, it states that deformities resulted from unequal heating which in turn contributed to the collapse.
The towers exterior tube framework was very much in equalibrium so expansion stress was transferred to connecting members way before deformities could cause failures
Assumes that large areas with deformities could transfer stresses forever.
On several floors the floor had sagged due to loss of integrity at impact either due to having connections broken or by having the floor concrete and trusses damaged by impact. Certainly on those levels the ability to transfer even more loading due to heat induced deformity was severely limited from the beginning.(a point at which the normal equilibrium of the core-floor-perimeter system was significantly disturbed)
We've said the same things from different perspectives, if we talk about deformities. Unequal heating immediately implies that small zones are heated whereupon loads cause deformities which then transfer more to rest on un heated members in distribution, or unequal expansion causes deformity.
You go to far. Forever? I do not even assume that large areas with significant deformities existed. A handful of sagging floor panels is nothing, there are still 1 x 3 foot floor beams every 40 feet.
Did some buildings collapse? I didn't know that, I hope no one was hurt.
This is what's in the NIST final report. Anything else is BS.
We are still waiting for the final on the WTC 7.
Do yourself a favor and look at these sites before coming to a conclution
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911
http://www.911myths.com
Common Sense,
Thanks for the pointers to those 2 sites. There is so much information out there, that's why I came here for help sorting through it. I'd like to stay away from any theories that are highly debatable (if possible).
On my first quick glance, I found this "debunk" which sounds like BS that demonstrates a lack of knowledge of thermodynamics.
OK so you agree that gordon and reasonwhy have valid points, yet you still defend this.
.jpg)
So instead of 31 times it was only 6 times, how can you honestly still agree with the fall time of of 11 seconds for this tower. (FEMA REPORT)
I see you have answered my question. You don't have to work at misrepresentation and misquote. It comes naturally to you.
gordon may have a valid point. That is a possibility though I haven't checked B-Z yet and gordon never cited exactly what B-Z was reffering to either.
I have also , on many occasions said that the 10 second collapse time is but the shortest calc of that parameter.
I just posted on collapse times
OK so you agree that gordon and reasonwhy have valid points, yet you still defend this.
So instead of 31 times it was only 6 times, how can you honestly still agree with the fall time of of 11 seconds for this tower. (FEMA REPORT)
I see you have answered my question. You don't have to work at misrepresentation and misquote. It comes naturally to you.
gordon may have a valid point. That is a possibility though I haven't checked B-Z yet and gordon never cited exactly what B-Z was reffering to either.
I have also , on many occasions said that the 10 second collapse time is but the shortest calc of that parameter.
I just posted on collapse times
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)
Thouigh, 30 or 6 times design load would do what to collapse time Rove's Shill? If the collapse time measurment error is 10 to 16 seconds then this is 13 (+/-3) seconds
Would 30 times the force collapse the building 5 times faster than 6 times the force?
NO it wouldn't. Would it collapse it faster than that 13 (+/- 23%). I don't know, perhaps you'd do the calcs for me.
Nice YID, you're starting to shovel faster, good to see you working for it. Why are you changing the fall time stated in the final NIST report? That's convienient, huh?
Still accusing me of misrepresentation? Damn man , have you know shame? I'm pulling off of what you are trying to feed us, the 'truth'. Right? Should we search this thread and the pentagon thread to see how many times you have misrepresented the B-Z load factors? Ok, well, we both know what you're about now.
Ok, from the picture posted do you agree with CSpams' version of the truth?
This is what's in the NIST final report. Anything else is BS.
We are still waiting for the final on the WTC 7.
Do yourself a favor and look at these sites before coming to a conclution
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911
http://www.911myths.com
Common Sense,
Thanks for the pointers to those 2 sites. There is so much information out there, that's why I came here for help sorting through it. I'd like to stay away from any theories that are highly debatable (if possible).
On my first quick glance, I found this "debunk" which sounds like BS that demonstrates a lack of knowledge of thermodynamics.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Already adressed newton
What the h4ll is that? What are the axis in the graph representing? What scales are being used?
It has already been established that NOTHING CAN FALL FASTER than free fall unless there is another force acting in the same direction.
yes. nothing can fall faster than freefall. agreed.
what the graph shows, is a linear plot, against the plot of an acceleration.
the linear plot represents the timing of the demolition charges.
the curve shows the acceleration of gravity.
it doesn't really need numbers.
unless you're thick.
boom boom.
boom.
bm.
m.
QUOTE
what the graph shows, is a linear plot, against the plot of an acceleration.
the linear plot represents the timing of the demolition charges.
the curve shows the acceleration of gravity.
it doesn't really need numbers.
the linear plot represents the timing of the demolition charges.
the curve shows the acceleration of gravity.
it doesn't really need numbers.
If what you say is true then all it really needs then is some basis by which to show demolition charges going off in a fashion that matchs this laughable graph. So far you got squat other than dust billows from a few windows here and there.
However I direct your attention to what is printed on the graph
"Building Faster Than Free Fall"
and the linear trace labeled
"Building Collapse Speed"
Both of which show an intention to illustrate that the building fell faster than free fall for some time and not that a string of demolition charges were set off.. (unless you wish to admit the producer of the graph is, as you put it, thick)
Here's another carefully edited quote from Jones
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
Yet Jones leaves this out the next paragraph:
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
I wonder why he left this out.
Jones analysis of the fires is the best yet, comprehensive. Non uniform heat is the factor that makes fires not related to the fall. Plus the basic fact the fires were not hot enough.
The paragraph may have been left out because it implies that unequal expansion caused deformities which caused failures. The towers exterior tube framework was very much in equalibrium so expansion stress was transferred to connecting members way before deformities could cause failures.
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
Yet Jones leaves this out the next paragraph:
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
I wonder why he left this out.
Jones analysis of the fires is the best yet, comprehensive. Non uniform heat is the factor that makes fires not related to the fall. Plus the basic fact the fires were not hot enough.
The paragraph may have been left out because it implies that unequal expansion caused deformities which caused failures. The towers exterior tube framework was very much in equalibrium so expansion stress was transferred to connecting members way before deformities could cause failures.
A rectangular opening showing a fire behind the columns rather than something rectangular stuck to the outside of the column seems likely.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 6 2006, 04:26 AM)
QUOTE
what the graph shows, is a linear plot, against the plot of an acceleration.
the linear plot represents the timing of the demolition charges.
the curve shows the acceleration of gravity.
it doesn't really need numbers.
the linear plot represents the timing of the demolition charges.
the curve shows the acceleration of gravity.
it doesn't really need numbers.
If what you say is true then all it really needs then is some basis by which to show demolition charges going off in a fashion that matchs this laughable graph. So far you got squat other than dust billows from a few windows here and there.
However I direct your attention to what is printed on the graph
"Building Faster Than Free Fall"
and the linear trace labeled
"Building Collapse Speed"
Both of which show an intention to illustrate that the building fell faster than free fall for some time and not that a string of demolition charges were set off.. (unless you wish to admit the producer of the graph is, as you put it, thick)
okay, it's becoming obvious that you're having a mental block of some sort.
i don't say anything FELL faster than freefall.
okay?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 6 2006, 04:49 AM)
A rectangular opening showing a fire behind the columns rather than something rectangular stuck to the outside of the column seems likely.
good point.
so, whatever it is that is white hot, is actually larger and more energetic than what we can directly observe. should we infer that the white hot patch is melting the corner supports above it? and maybe above that?
i mean white hot IS molten for ANY metal, isn't it?
QUOTE
The paragraph may have been left out because it implies that unequal expansion caused deformities which caused failures
No, it states that deformities resulted from unequal heating which in turn contributed to the collapse.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The paragraph may have been left out because it implies that unequal expansion caused deformities which caused failures |
No, it states that deformities resulted from unequal heating which in turn contributed to the collapse.
The towers exterior tube framework was very much in equalibrium so expansion stress was transferred to connecting members way before deformities could cause failures
Assumes that large areas with deformities could transfer stresses forever.
On several floors the floor had sagged due to loss of integrity at impact either due to having connections broken or by having the floor concrete and trusses damaged by impact. Certainly on those levels the ability to transfer even more loading due to heat induced deformity was severely limited from the beginning.(a point at which the normal equilibrium of the core-floor-perimeter system was significantly disturbed)
QUOTE
so, whatever it is that is white hot, is actually larger and more energetic than what we can directly observe. should we infer that the white hot patch is melting the corner supports above it? and maybe above that?
Not neccessarily. All it need be is bright enough to cause the recording to register as bright white as it is able to throughout that area. The source behind the opening need not be that much larger than the opening.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 6 2006, 05:03 AM)
QUOTE
so, whatever it is that is white hot, is actually larger and more energetic than what we can directly observe. should we infer that the white hot patch is melting the corner supports above it? and maybe above that?
Not neccessarily. All it need be is bright enough to cause the recording to register as bright white as it is able to throughout that area. The source behind the opening need not be that much larger than the opening.
and yet, that area is in shadow, and there is a source of light(the flame) outside the building, not to mention the sun. so, it is definitely something white hot.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 6 2006, 04:59 AM)
QUOTE
The paragraph may have been left out because it implies that unequal expansion caused deformities which caused failures
No, it states that deformities resulted from unequal heating which in turn contributed to the collapse.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The paragraph may have been left out because it implies that unequal expansion caused deformities which caused failures |
No, it states that deformities resulted from unequal heating which in turn contributed to the collapse.
The towers exterior tube framework was very much in equalibrium so expansion stress was transferred to connecting members way before deformities could cause failures
Assumes that large areas with deformities could transfer stresses forever.
On several floors the floor had sagged due to loss of integrity at impact either due to having connections broken or by having the floor concrete and trusses damaged by impact. Certainly on those levels the ability to transfer even more loading due to heat induced deformity was severely limited from the beginning.(a point at which the normal equilibrium of the core-floor-perimeter system was significantly disturbed)
We've said the same things from different perspectives, if we talk about deformities. Unequal heating immediately implies that small zones are heated whereupon loads cause deformities which then transfer more to rest on un heated members in distribution, or unequal expansion causes deformity.
You go to far. Forever? I do not even assume that large areas with significant deformities existed. A handful of sagging floor panels is nothing, there are still 1 x 3 foot floor beams every 40 feet.
Did some buildings collapse? I didn't know that, I hope no one was hurt.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 5 2006, 09:00 PM)
This is what's in the NIST final report. Anything else is BS.
We are still waiting for the final on the WTC 7.
Do yourself a favor and look at these sites before coming to a conclution
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911
http://www.911myths.com
Common Sense,
Thanks for the pointers to those 2 sites. There is so much information out there, that's why I came here for help sorting through it. I'd like to stay away from any theories that are highly debatable (if possible).
On my first quick glance, I found this "debunk" which sounds like BS that demonstrates a lack of knowledge of thermodynamics.
QUOTE (debunker site explanation for molten steel+)
Despite repeated calculations showing that the energy released simply from the kinetic collapse is on the close order of a small nuclear weapon, without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of tons of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors and a large percentage of which would be in the rubble pile and heated to ignition point by the heat from the kinetic energy dissipated by the collapse.
Certainly there was enormous potential energy represented by such a high building. That energy can be used to do a great deal of work. However you would need an efficient machine to convert that potential energy into high temperatures.
The collapse of the building would be dissipating energy throughought manhattan through low grade processes. It couldn't possibly explain molten steel or even temperatures as high as burning paper.
In other words, a collapse doesn't generate enough heat to spontaneously ignite paper. However, sparks generated by the collapse could ignite paper and other consumables. But then you are just back to the fire scenario again. So you have the original question and no more. "Could jet fuel or paper fires have melted the steel?"
Referring to the energy of a nuclear weapon is not necessarily untrue but it is manipulative and misleading. Any matter as heavy as a nuclear weapon contains the energy of a nuclear weapon. However, it could not be made to operate as a nuclear weapon unless it is highly exotic material.
Thanks for the status update and the links.
-Astaire
Certainly there was enormous potential energy represented by such a high building. That energy can be used to do a great deal of work. However you would need an efficient machine to convert that potential energy into high temperatures.
The collapse of the building would be dissipating energy throughought manhattan through low grade processes. It couldn't possibly explain molten steel or even temperatures as high as burning paper.
In other words, a collapse doesn't generate enough heat to spontaneously ignite paper. However, sparks generated by the collapse could ignite paper and other consumables. But then you are just back to the fire scenario again. So you have the original question and no more. "Could jet fuel or paper fires have melted the steel?"
Referring to the energy of a nuclear weapon is not necessarily untrue but it is manipulative and misleading. Any matter as heavy as a nuclear weapon contains the energy of a nuclear weapon. However, it could not be made to operate as a nuclear weapon unless it is highly exotic material.
Thanks for the status update and the links.
-Astaire
QUOTE (ScottS+Apr 6 2006, 01:30 AM)
If I have errored in my research in any way please point this out and I will check it out. If I point out errors in Jones paper then they should be considered. The methodogy should be considered.
Please.
Less time than air?? I am interesting in seeing more on this claim.
I haven't considered the fall time really in question as is the symetical type collapse.
Scott,
Yes thanks for pointing out the flaws in Steve Jones representation.
That's why I'm here, to get BOTH sides of the story.
I too would like to avoid pissing contests. Therefore I prefer to concentrate on what we can verify scientifically with our own eyes.
I'd like to concentrate on free fall and symettry.
To me both of these are indisputable evidence of a carefully planned demolition (unless the videos I have seen have been faked).
Can you point me to where I can verify for myself the flaws in Steve's claims that you refer to?
I have one complaint myself. He links to a billiard ball example that requires 30 seconds or 90 seconds for pancaking.
Unfortunately it was assumed that zero kinetic energy would be transmitted when one floor collides with another. Therefore it weakens the free fall story rather than strengthening it. It shows how easy it is to give false engineering demonstrations.
-Astaire
Please.
Less time than air?? I am interesting in seeing more on this claim.
I haven't considered the fall time really in question as is the symetical type collapse.
Scott,
Yes thanks for pointing out the flaws in Steve Jones representation.
That's why I'm here, to get BOTH sides of the story.
I too would like to avoid pissing contests. Therefore I prefer to concentrate on what we can verify scientifically with our own eyes.
I'd like to concentrate on free fall and symettry.
To me both of these are indisputable evidence of a carefully planned demolition (unless the videos I have seen have been faked).
Can you point me to where I can verify for myself the flaws in Steve's claims that you refer to?
I have one complaint myself. He links to a billiard ball example that requires 30 seconds or 90 seconds for pancaking.
Unfortunately it was assumed that zero kinetic energy would be transmitted when one floor collides with another. Therefore it weakens the free fall story rather than strengthening it. It shows how easy it is to give false engineering demonstrations.
-Astaire
CommonSense,
Thanks again for those debunking sites. That is just what I am looking for. I want to find the bes arguments possible against a carefully planned demolition because by looking at the videos and adding basic physics knowledge it looks like an open and shut case. (That's why I'd like to avoid the more debatable aspects).
So far the myth site looks better than the debunker site (but that's still a hasty impression).
I quick glance at the debunking of the pancaking complaints looks like they have done some good relevant research. However, so far it looks like a symetric collapse only occured in an unfinished building. From memory, I know of an unfinished building that pancaked because the floors were being poured to quickly not allowing the concrete to fully set. I wonder if it is the same example they refer to. Anyway, if the structure was not yet in place that could explain the pancaking but NOT for the WTC.
What is most important is the free fall times they give. Unfortunately, I cannot tell if the info is precise(5 seconds that would have been 2.5). If the times are correct I'd tend to think they demonstrate the the WTC buildings fell too quickly for a pancaking of full set concrete. However, I think the free fal of the WTC buildings should be analyzed for only the top half of the structure to avoid the messier calculations for the bottom half.
I also made a quick glance at the molten steel debunk. Their clame that excavation buckets are made of steel looks like a straw man and weakens their credibility in my view. They did finally come to the photo of molten steel though.
The biggest complaint is calling into question where the photo was taken. So far they present no evidence against but I'm glad they have cast some doubt. Hopefully it can be established whether the photo is valid or not. The discussion there continues to show bias and clutching at straws. Of course a steel bucket could pick up "molten" steel exactly as we see in the photo. Claiming the opposite undermines their credibility.
It doesn't seem possible to melt steel with ordinary hydrocarbon fires.
However, I have begun to wonder if steel is melted by explosives in ordinary building demolitions either. I haven't yet seen any claims for or against that hypothesis.
Are there any structural engineers or other professionals that can validate whether molten steel occurs at the cleanup of building demolition sites.
-Astaire
Thanks again for those debunking sites. That is just what I am looking for. I want to find the bes arguments possible against a carefully planned demolition because by looking at the videos and adding basic physics knowledge it looks like an open and shut case. (That's why I'd like to avoid the more debatable aspects).
So far the myth site looks better than the debunker site (but that's still a hasty impression).
I quick glance at the debunking of the pancaking complaints looks like they have done some good relevant research. However, so far it looks like a symetric collapse only occured in an unfinished building. From memory, I know of an unfinished building that pancaked because the floors were being poured to quickly not allowing the concrete to fully set. I wonder if it is the same example they refer to. Anyway, if the structure was not yet in place that could explain the pancaking but NOT for the WTC.
What is most important is the free fall times they give. Unfortunately, I cannot tell if the info is precise(5 seconds that would have been 2.5). If the times are correct I'd tend to think they demonstrate the the WTC buildings fell too quickly for a pancaking of full set concrete. However, I think the free fal of the WTC buildings should be analyzed for only the top half of the structure to avoid the messier calculations for the bottom half.
I also made a quick glance at the molten steel debunk. Their clame that excavation buckets are made of steel looks like a straw man and weakens their credibility in my view. They did finally come to the photo of molten steel though.
The biggest complaint is calling into question where the photo was taken. So far they present no evidence against but I'm glad they have cast some doubt. Hopefully it can be established whether the photo is valid or not. The discussion there continues to show bias and clutching at straws. Of course a steel bucket could pick up "molten" steel exactly as we see in the photo. Claiming the opposite undermines their credibility.
It doesn't seem possible to melt steel with ordinary hydrocarbon fires.
However, I have begun to wonder if steel is melted by explosives in ordinary building demolitions either. I haven't yet seen any claims for or against that hypothesis.
Are there any structural engineers or other professionals that can validate whether molten steel occurs at the cleanup of building demolition sites.
-Astaire
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 5 2006, 10:36 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 5 2006, 07:14 PM)
QUOTE
,,,, and I get accused of dogmatic adherance to a position rolleyes.gif
OK so you agree that gordon and reasonwhy have valid points, yet you still defend this.
So instead of 31 times it was only 6 times, how can you honestly still agree with the fall time of of 11 seconds for this tower. (FEMA REPORT)
I see you have answered my question. You don't have to work at misrepresentation and misquote. It comes naturally to you.
gordon may have a valid point. That is a possibility though I haven't checked B-Z yet and gordon never cited exactly what B-Z was reffering to either.
I have also , on many occasions said that the 10 second collapse time is but the shortest calc of that parameter.
I just posted on collapse times
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ,,,, and I get accused of dogmatic adherance to a position rolleyes.gif |
OK so you agree that gordon and reasonwhy have valid points, yet you still defend this.
So instead of 31 times it was only 6 times, how can you honestly still agree with the fall time of of 11 seconds for this tower. (FEMA REPORT)
I see you have answered my question. You don't have to work at misrepresentation and misquote. It comes naturally to you.
gordon may have a valid point. That is a possibility though I haven't checked B-Z yet and gordon never cited exactly what B-Z was reffering to either.
I have also , on many occasions said that the 10 second collapse time is but the shortest calc of that parameter.
I just posted on collapse times
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)
Thouigh, 30 or 6 times design load would do what to collapse time Rove's Shill? If the collapse time measurment error is 10 to 16 seconds then this is 13 (+/-3) seconds
Would 30 times the force collapse the building 5 times faster than 6 times the force?
NO it wouldn't. Would it collapse it faster than that 13 (+/- 23%). I don't know, perhaps you'd do the calcs for me.
Nice YID, you're starting to shovel faster, good to see you working for it. Why are you changing the fall time stated in the final NIST report? That's convienient, huh?
Still accusing me of misrepresentation? Damn man , have you know shame? I'm pulling off of what you are trying to feed us, the 'truth'. Right? Should we search this thread and the pentagon thread to see how many times you have misrepresented the B-Z load factors? Ok, well, we both know what you're about now.
Ok, from the picture posted do you agree with CSpams' version of the truth?
QUOTE
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled East face) to the East (about 7ºto 8º) and South (about 3ºto 4º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the East wall along the adjacent North and South walls. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the East as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
QUOTE (astaire+Apr 6 2006, 01:56 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 5 2006, 09:00 PM)
This is what's in the NIST final report. Anything else is BS.
We are still waiting for the final on the WTC 7.
Do yourself a favor and look at these sites before coming to a conclution
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911
http://www.911myths.com
Common Sense,
Thanks for the pointers to those 2 sites. There is so much information out there, that's why I came here for help sorting through it. I'd like to stay away from any theories that are highly debatable (if possible).
On my first quick glance, I found this "debunk" which sounds like BS that demonstrates a lack of knowledge of thermodynamics.
QUOTE (debunker site explanation for molten steel+)
Despite repeated calculations showing that the energy released simply from the kinetic collapse is on the close order of a small nuclear weapon, without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of tons of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors and a large percentage of which would be in the rubble pile and heated to ignition point by the heat from the kinetic energy dissipated by the collapse.
Certainly there was enormous potential energy represented by such a high building. That energy can be used to do a great deal of work. However you would need an efficient machine to convert that potential energy into high temperatures.
The collapse of the building would be dissipating energy throughought manhattan through low grade processes. It couldn't possibly explain molten steel or even temperatures as high as burning paper.
In other words, a collapse doesn't generate enough heat to spontaneously ignite paper. However, sparks generated by the collapse could ignite paper and other consumables. But then you are just back to the fire scenario again. So you have the original question and no more. "Could jet fuel or paper fires have melted the steel?"
Referring to the energy of a nuclear weapon is not necessarily untrue but it is manipulative and misleading. Any matter as heavy as a nuclear weapon contains the energy of a nuclear weapon. However, it could not be made to operate as a nuclear weapon unless it is highly exotic material.
Thanks for the status update and the links.
-Astaire
Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.
The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below."
Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself." Robert McNamara said his failure mechanism theory "focuses on the connections that hold the structure together," but he cautioned that "we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures."
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
Looks like he was right to me. I might add that the NIST report shows Robert McNamara was right about the connection.
http://www.mcsal.com/rjm.html
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=2330&isa=Category
Now if the energy was insulated at the bottom of the debris pile it COULD explain the temp. NOWHERE on that site is there a claim of nowing EXACTLY what caused the molten steel. Unlike conspiracy theory sites we don't claim to know exactly what happened. There are other possibilities which are also plausable. Personally I like this one.
It's also misleading to suggest anyone said the building exploded like a nuclear bomb. No one made that claim. That a % of energy is there has been shown. In FACT if you read the quote correcty and in context he says the reason the molten steel may be there is BECAUSE it didn't blow up like a nuclear bomb.
Also, if the building didn't pancake how do you explain the part of the core still standing well after collapse? We can assume the floors didn't just fly away?
Certainly there was enormous potential energy represented by such a high building. That energy can be used to do a great deal of work. However you would need an efficient machine to convert that potential energy into high temperatures.
The collapse of the building would be dissipating energy throughought manhattan through low grade processes. It couldn't possibly explain molten steel or even temperatures as high as burning paper.
In other words, a collapse doesn't generate enough heat to spontaneously ignite paper. However, sparks generated by the collapse could ignite paper and other consumables. But then you are just back to the fire scenario again. So you have the original question and no more. "Could jet fuel or paper fires have melted the steel?"
Referring to the energy of a nuclear weapon is not necessarily untrue but it is manipulative and misleading. Any matter as heavy as a nuclear weapon contains the energy of a nuclear weapon. However, it could not be made to operate as a nuclear weapon unless it is highly exotic material.
Thanks for the status update and the links.
-Astaire
Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.
The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below."
Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself." Robert McNamara said his failure mechanism theory "focuses on the connections that hold the structure together," but he cautioned that "we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures."
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
Looks like he was right to me. I might add that the NIST report shows Robert McNamara was right about the connection.
http://www.mcsal.com/rjm.html
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=2330&isa=Category
Now if the energy was insulated at the bottom of the debris pile it COULD explain the temp. NOWHERE on that site is there a claim of nowing EXACTLY what caused the molten steel. Unlike conspiracy theory sites we don't claim to know exactly what happened. There are other possibilities which are also plausable. Personally I like this one.
It's also misleading to suggest anyone said the building exploded like a nuclear bomb. No one made that claim. That a % of energy is there has been shown. In FACT if you read the quote correcty and in context he says the reason the molten steel may be there is BECAUSE it didn't blow up like a nuclear bomb.
Also, if the building didn't pancake how do you explain the part of the core still standing well after collapse? We can assume the floors didn't just fly away?
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 6 2006, 04:04 AM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 5 2006, 10:39 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 5 2006, 10:33 PM)
Concrete CAN explode with aluminum pouring on to it. This is a possibility. Depends on how much water is in it and otehr factors. I'll be happy to continue researching.
If it can explode that is irrelevant, he said it would explode as if were a certainty. If exploding concrete were only a possibility it proves nothing.
Len
Well, this is a scream! You've glossed over the the not insignificant detail that science fundamentally deals with probabilities, and the goal is to approach probability 1.0, and stay away from probability 0.0.
I've noticed this trait in popes (as well as the unscientific, thought it seems to be deliberate with most of the popes) again and again.
So what probability would you guess that molten aluminum, pooling on top of concrete of the type that was present in the part of the WTC tower, in question, would not explode the concrete? .001? .0000001? Do tell.
More importantly: You do understand the significance of the question, don't you?
Please provide a citation indicating that such a fire almost certainly would have exploded the concrete. I imagine you believe this was a thermite reaction, correct me if I'm wrong but don't thermite reaction produce temperatures (2500 C) much higher than the melting point of aluminum (660 C)?
Other metals IIRC have lower melting and flame points.
As for the shape of the flame the resolution of the image isn't good enough to draw many conclusions. Also all we can see is the profile of the flame. Foxx seems to assume a round object burning would produce a cylindrical flame and a square or rectangular object a parallelepiped one. The 2 dimensional profile of a cylinder and a parallelepiped are the same.
Uhhhhh... yeah, right YID --- that non-explanatory explanation is on par with the Amazing Underground Bellows and the Amazing Supersonic Jet Fuel theories in my opinion.
Just what the hell are you trying to imply with this bizarro nonsense? There's some kind of 5th dimensional opening in the fire which is allowing us to see the sun behind the flames? You have come up with some pretty wacky statements but the above really has to 'take the cake'. Would you mind rephrasing your nonsense to understandable english?
The 'metal fire' (as claimed by NIST as a probable / plausible explanation for this white - hot rectangle) is not behind or in front of ANY 'columns'... it's sitting in the middle of the fire. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your wackiness - are you saying that we are seeing some kind of 'window' through which we are looking at some 'metal fire' which is 'behind' the clearly observable flames from the hydrocarbon fire???
If you read the report I suggested, this is NOT the only photo of this anomalous 'metal fire'. It suddenly flared up and immediately saturated the pixels in photos from different angles with its intensity... momentarily BEFORE the 'molten metal' began "pouring" from that NE corner. It was clearly seen, and videotaped from distances that even the brightness of the hydrocarbon fire could NOT be seen.
Please re-read your quote above and try to clarify exactly WHAT you are implying with such nonsense.
It appears (to me) to be simply a knee-jerk reaction made in desperation, which makes no sense at all. Perhaps you were just tired and weren't thinking when you made the post?
Read again what NIST claims about this 'metal fire'...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
OR...
refer to the entire document...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
PS --- If you can't come up with some 'reasonable postulation' which fits the NIST 'probability', please just accept the fact that you do not have a reasonable explaination and refrain from further "fifth dimensional portholes" explainations. Thanks.
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
There is no way to determine if the sounds come from the towers or another, closer source such as the waterfront in the foreground.
If it can explode that is irrelevant, he said it would explode as if were a certainty. If exploding concrete were only a possibility it proves nothing.
Len
Well, this is a scream! You've glossed over the the not insignificant detail that science fundamentally deals with probabilities, and the goal is to approach probability 1.0, and stay away from probability 0.0.
I've noticed this trait in popes (as well as the unscientific, thought it seems to be deliberate with most of the popes) again and again.
So what probability would you guess that molten aluminum, pooling on top of concrete of the type that was present in the part of the WTC tower, in question, would not explode the concrete? .001? .0000001? Do tell.
More importantly: You do understand the significance of the question, don't you?
Please provide a citation indicating that such a fire almost certainly would have exploded the concrete. I imagine you believe this was a thermite reaction, correct me if I'm wrong but don't thermite reaction produce temperatures (2500 C) much higher than the melting point of aluminum (660 C)?
Other metals IIRC have lower melting and flame points.
As for the shape of the flame the resolution of the image isn't good enough to draw many conclusions. Also all we can see is the profile of the flame. Foxx seems to assume a round object burning would produce a cylindrical flame and a square or rectangular object a parallelepiped one. The 2 dimensional profile of a cylinder and a parallelepiped are the same.
QUOTE
by YID
A rectangular opening showing a fire behind the columns rather than something rectangular stuck to the outside of the column seems likely.
A rectangular opening showing a fire behind the columns rather than something rectangular stuck to the outside of the column seems likely.
Uhhhhh... yeah, right YID --- that non-explanatory explanation is on par with the Amazing Underground Bellows and the Amazing Supersonic Jet Fuel theories in my opinion.
Just what the hell are you trying to imply with this bizarro nonsense? There's some kind of 5th dimensional opening in the fire which is allowing us to see the sun behind the flames? You have come up with some pretty wacky statements but the above really has to 'take the cake'. Would you mind rephrasing your nonsense to understandable english?
The 'metal fire' (as claimed by NIST as a probable / plausible explanation for this white - hot rectangle) is not behind or in front of ANY 'columns'... it's sitting in the middle of the fire. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your wackiness - are you saying that we are seeing some kind of 'window' through which we are looking at some 'metal fire' which is 'behind' the clearly observable flames from the hydrocarbon fire???
If you read the report I suggested, this is NOT the only photo of this anomalous 'metal fire'. It suddenly flared up and immediately saturated the pixels in photos from different angles with its intensity... momentarily BEFORE the 'molten metal' began "pouring" from that NE corner. It was clearly seen, and videotaped from distances that even the brightness of the hydrocarbon fire could NOT be seen.
Please re-read your quote above and try to clarify exactly WHAT you are implying with such nonsense.
It appears (to me) to be simply a knee-jerk reaction made in desperation, which makes no sense at all. Perhaps you were just tired and weren't thinking when you made the post?
Read again what NIST claims about this 'metal fire'...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
OR...
refer to the entire document...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
PS --- If you can't come up with some 'reasonable postulation' which fits the NIST 'probability', please just accept the fact that you do not have a reasonable explaination and refrain from further "fifth dimensional portholes" explainations. Thanks.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 04:11 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 6 2006, 03:54 AM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+)
what created the low-level booms of comparable intensity to the collapses? It cannot be localised internal failures as there's no way these could match the intensity of global collapse. Basement bombs are the prime candidate IMO.
There is no way to determine if the sounds come from the towers or another, closer source such as the waterfront in the foreground.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+)
the energy required to make sound, and the propogation of sound through different mediums is more PROOF, just as the demolition waves passing freefalling debris down the side of the tower is proof, just as the squibs are proof.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Already adressed newton
What the h4ll is that? What are the axis in the graph representing? What scales are being used?
It has already been established that NOTHING CAN FALL FASTER than free fall unless there is another force acting in the same direction.
yes. nothing can fall faster than freefall. agreed.
what the graph shows, is a linear plot, against the plot of an acceleration.
the linear plot represents the timing of the demolition charges.
the curve shows the acceleration of gravity.
it doesn't really need numbers.
unless you're thick.
boom boom.
boom.
bm.
m.
Sir Issac,
Please provide clear evidence other than those blurry blobs as evidence that what you contend is true. If it were true it should be visible in all the videos of the collapse.
If I understand your drift your saying what you think are signs of explosions occur below the height of the lowest debris. That has already been explained as the collapse wave forced air out of the lower floors. Speculation is pointless unless you can provide better evidence for what you allege,
Also your hero Jones calculated (according to you) that the 570 foot 7 WTC should collapsed in about 10 seconds,67% longer than free fall time, due to air resistance. Did he offer ant references to back this notion. Please provide a link to the presentation. you are the one proposing the theory (here) it's up to you to provide evidence to back it.
it's proven.
it is possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Already adressed newton
What the h4ll is that? What are the axis in the graph representing? What scales are being used?
It has already been established that NOTHING CAN FALL FASTER than free fall unless there is another force acting in the same direction.
yes. nothing can fall faster than freefall. agreed.
what the graph shows, is a linear plot, against the plot of an acceleration.
the linear plot represents the timing of the demolition charges.
the curve shows the acceleration of gravity.
it doesn't really need numbers.
unless you're thick.
boom boom.
boom.
bm.
m.
Sir Issac,
Please provide clear evidence other than those blurry blobs as evidence that what you contend is true. If it were true it should be visible in all the videos of the collapse.
If I understand your drift your saying what you think are signs of explosions occur below the height of the lowest debris. That has already been explained as the collapse wave forced air out of the lower floors. Speculation is pointless unless you can provide better evidence for what you allege,
Also your hero Jones calculated (according to you) that the 570 foot 7 WTC should collapsed in about 10 seconds,67% longer than free fall time, due to air resistance. Did he offer ant references to back this notion. Please provide a link to the presentation. you are the one proposing the theory (here) it's up to you to provide evidence to back it.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 02:39 AM)
that blurry video frame clearly shows...
ROTFLMAO
ROTFLMAO
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 6 2006, 09:02 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 02:39 AM)
that blurry video frame clearly shows...
ROTFLMAO
HAHAHA!!!! You gotta love him...
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy...20(sotower).jpg
ROTFLMAO
HAHAHA!!!! You gotta love him...
QUOTE
Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself." Robert McNamara said his failure mechanism theory "focuses on the connections that hold the structure together," but he cautioned that "we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures."
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy...20(sotower).jpg
Those of you who are sane and sober engineers and scientists responding to conspiracy theorists (CTs) that plague your board need to step away from the keyboard. CTs are delusional, irrational, lay people, Internet ‘researchers’. The second post on this thread debunked the first poster (clearly a CT) and 650 something pages later, CTs are still at it. No I didn't read them all, nor will I. However, some of us, me included obviously feel compelled to respond to them, hoping that at least one of them will take a long hard look at the crap they are spouting. Yeah, right. And monkeys.........
CT Internet researchers’/campaigners’ ‘work’ is characterized by the use of Latin, namely ad-hominem and que bono and repeated references to Occam's’s razor by which they hope to add points to their intellect. They slate the FEMA and NIST reports even though they have no qualifications to do so.
Their ‘experts’ and movement ‘heroes’ are, other than the risible Steven E Jones and Judy Woods are not engineers or scientists but philosophers, religion lecturers and economists. Today I hear an actor called Charlie Sheen has contributed his wisdom and life experience! CTs' videos and eyewitness quotes are edited to suit, witnesses whose testimony doesn’t support the conspiracy (most of them) are ridiculed and the few (understandably confused) witnesses who speak of explosions- usually ‘like an explosion’ are the only ones who matter. Then again, what does an explosive release of mechanical strain energy sound like CTs? There would be plenty of that in the towers post impact. A 13kV CB exploding? And it would. An elevator falling from 350 meters? Noisy, percussive, scary, explosive!
None of the CTs would ever address the point that in a conspiracy this big and this deadly, not one of the thousands of people that would need to be involved in it has a conscious. No-one is coming forward to say ‘I planted the explosives, fired the missiles, operated the hologram generator, operated the remote control planes, murdered the passengers who were never on the cargo plane, destroyed the evidence, sent texts to the 4000 (sic) Israelis in the towers 4 hours before the attacks telling them to get out (my my, Israelis go to work early and what a lot of them) etc.’
Even if video footage was released (the CTs all assume that there is some) supporting the official version of the Pentagon strike, CTs would dismiss it as fake, a remote control aircraft, missile with an AA paint job.
You/we can’t win with CTs. They know best. They weren’t there and aren’t qualified in the appropriate disciplines. The Internet tells them everything they need to know.
Note to self. Ignore.
CT Internet researchers’/campaigners’ ‘work’ is characterized by the use of Latin, namely ad-hominem and que bono and repeated references to Occam's’s razor by which they hope to add points to their intellect. They slate the FEMA and NIST reports even though they have no qualifications to do so.
Their ‘experts’ and movement ‘heroes’ are, other than the risible Steven E Jones and Judy Woods are not engineers or scientists but philosophers, religion lecturers and economists. Today I hear an actor called Charlie Sheen has contributed his wisdom and life experience! CTs' videos and eyewitness quotes are edited to suit, witnesses whose testimony doesn’t support the conspiracy (most of them) are ridiculed and the few (understandably confused) witnesses who speak of explosions- usually ‘like an explosion’ are the only ones who matter. Then again, what does an explosive release of mechanical strain energy sound like CTs? There would be plenty of that in the towers post impact. A 13kV CB exploding? And it would. An elevator falling from 350 meters? Noisy, percussive, scary, explosive!
None of the CTs would ever address the point that in a conspiracy this big and this deadly, not one of the thousands of people that would need to be involved in it has a conscious. No-one is coming forward to say ‘I planted the explosives, fired the missiles, operated the hologram generator, operated the remote control planes, murdered the passengers who were never on the cargo plane, destroyed the evidence, sent texts to the 4000 (sic) Israelis in the towers 4 hours before the attacks telling them to get out (my my, Israelis go to work early and what a lot of them) etc.’
Even if video footage was released (the CTs all assume that there is some) supporting the official version of the Pentagon strike, CTs would dismiss it as fake, a remote control aircraft, missile with an AA paint job.
You/we can’t win with CTs. They know best. They weren’t there and aren’t qualified in the appropriate disciplines. The Internet tells them everything they need to know.
Note to self. Ignore.
Yes Gatekeeper, Doreen, Chuckles, Wildbill, Arthur, ignore the evidence. Go back and watch TV, everything will be fine. We'll take care of everything. Sleep now. It will be fine. Who is on Oprah today? That's very interesting. OK, off you go. Nothing to see here.
Hi CommonSense,
Thanks for the Kausel quotes here that seem to be quite relevant and also trustworthy to a degree.
In other words, a collapse doesn't generate enough heat to spontaneously ignite paper.
Astaire Now: Oops, I should have said not a high enough temperature. I should have been more careful about not confusing the different meanings of heat and temperature. It undoubtedly generated huge amounts of heat but very low grade (i. e., high dissipation and relatively low temperature gradients)
Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.
Exactly! Not converted to high temperatures. Think of the huge amount of energy in a mountain top or mudslides. You have huge amounts of potential energy that get dissipated. However an avalanche or a mudslide has never melted the steel in buildings that it has bowled over because the heat is being dissipated in a low grade fashion over a huge area (volume actually). There is no mechanism to concentrate the energy into a small space.
If there was a light pole in the path it would get bent. That would produce a small amount of heat (low temperature warming). If you bend the pole back and forth several times rapidly it will get hot to the touch (but I seriously doubt you could get it to melt that way).
In other words, you need mechanisms to concentrate the energy.
With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.
I have no quibble with Kausels comparison to a bomb here. It was the web page I quoted that I said was misleading about what could be done with that energy. Below kausel is specific about where he is claiming the energy flow will be, and it sounds reasonable to me at first glance. So thanks for sharing this info.
The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below."
That sounds reasonable. I hasten to repeat that huge heat transfer does not imply any high concentrations of temperature gradients. Quite the contrary.
Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself." Robert McNamara said his failure mechanism theory "focuses on the connections that hold the structure together," but he cautioned that "we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures."
I agree that a building is not at all like a tree.
However, I srongly object to his sloppy claim that buildings CANNOT tip over.
First of all, buildings sometimes do tip over (perhaps slender buildings rarely tip depending on their lack of stiffness).
Secondly, the WTC towers would not have tipped over like a tree. However, pieces would have tipped momentarily so as to cause an asymetric collapse.
Looks like he was right to me. I might add that the NIST report shows Robert McNamara was right about the connection.
What connection?
Now if the energy was insulated at the bottom of the debris pile it COULD explain the temp. NOWHERE on that site is there a claim of nowing EXACTLY what caused the molten steel. Unlike conspiracy theory sites we don't claim to know exactly what happened. There are other possibilities which are also plausable. Personally I like this one.
I don't claim to know what happened. I'd like to get to the point where I could claim to know WHAT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Some of the physics necessary to understand this problem seem simple enough for me to follow it up. For example, I found some papers by F.R. Greening that look very fair, cautious, and straightforward enough to be digested by amateur physicists. What do you think of Greening btw?
It's also misleading to suggest anyone said the building exploded like a nuclear bomb. No one made that claim. That a % of energy is there has been shown. In FACT if you read the quote correcty and in context he says the reason the molten steel may be there is BECAUSE it didn't blow up like a nuclear bomb.
My quibble was that his scenario made it sound like huge amounts of energy could be released in concentrated ways (his scenario read differently from kausels'). So with a bomb comparison you get the idea that there was high grade energy available to melt steel etc. It was sloppily written and very misleading.
Also, if the building didn't pancake how do you explain the part of the core still standing well after collapse? We can assume the floors didn't just fly away?
I don't know what is implied by pancake. As far as I know, a planned demolition could include pancaking.
Therefore, I am trying to be cautious about what I would claim.
My eyes tell me that skyscrapers do not disintegrate without careful planning.
Now, I need to follow up that intuition with some mathematics.
Greening looks like a good start.
I didn't know the core was still standing. I suppose it was a small part. In any case, a planned demolition could easily include a core that remained. So I don't see the issue you wish to raise here.
-Astaire
Thanks for the Kausel quotes here that seem to be quite relevant and also trustworthy to a degree.
QUOTE (Astaire Before+)
In other words, a collapse doesn't generate enough heat to spontaneously ignite paper.
Astaire Now: Oops, I should have said not a high enough temperature. I should have been more careful about not confusing the different meanings of heat and temperature. It undoubtedly generated huge amounts of heat but very low grade (i. e., high dissipation and relatively low temperature gradients)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 6 2006, 12:52 PM)
Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.
Exactly! Not converted to high temperatures. Think of the huge amount of energy in a mountain top or mudslides. You have huge amounts of potential energy that get dissipated. However an avalanche or a mudslide has never melted the steel in buildings that it has bowled over because the heat is being dissipated in a low grade fashion over a huge area (volume actually). There is no mechanism to concentrate the energy into a small space.
If there was a light pole in the path it would get bent. That would produce a small amount of heat (low temperature warming). If you bend the pole back and forth several times rapidly it will get hot to the touch (but I seriously doubt you could get it to melt that way).
In other words, you need mechanisms to concentrate the energy.
QUOTE (Kausel??+)
With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.
I have no quibble with Kausels comparison to a bomb here. It was the web page I quoted that I said was misleading about what could be done with that energy. Below kausel is specific about where he is claiming the energy flow will be, and it sounds reasonable to me at first glance. So thanks for sharing this info.
QUOTE (Kausel??+)
The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below."
That sounds reasonable. I hasten to repeat that huge heat transfer does not imply any high concentrations of temperature gradients. Quite the contrary.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 6 2006, 12:52 PM)
Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself." Robert McNamara said his failure mechanism theory "focuses on the connections that hold the structure together," but he cautioned that "we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures."
I agree that a building is not at all like a tree.
However, I srongly object to his sloppy claim that buildings CANNOT tip over.
First of all, buildings sometimes do tip over (perhaps slender buildings rarely tip depending on their lack of stiffness).
Secondly, the WTC towers would not have tipped over like a tree. However, pieces would have tipped momentarily so as to cause an asymetric collapse.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 6 2006, 12:52 PM)
Looks like he was right to me. I might add that the NIST report shows Robert McNamara was right about the connection.
What connection?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 6 2006, 12:52 PM)
Now if the energy was insulated at the bottom of the debris pile it COULD explain the temp. NOWHERE on that site is there a claim of nowing EXACTLY what caused the molten steel. Unlike conspiracy theory sites we don't claim to know exactly what happened. There are other possibilities which are also plausable. Personally I like this one.
I don't claim to know what happened. I'd like to get to the point where I could claim to know WHAT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Some of the physics necessary to understand this problem seem simple enough for me to follow it up. For example, I found some papers by F.R. Greening that look very fair, cautious, and straightforward enough to be digested by amateur physicists. What do you think of Greening btw?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 6 2006, 12:52 PM)
It's also misleading to suggest anyone said the building exploded like a nuclear bomb. No one made that claim. That a % of energy is there has been shown. In FACT if you read the quote correcty and in context he says the reason the molten steel may be there is BECAUSE it didn't blow up like a nuclear bomb.
My quibble was that his scenario made it sound like huge amounts of energy could be released in concentrated ways (his scenario read differently from kausels'). So with a bomb comparison you get the idea that there was high grade energy available to melt steel etc. It was sloppily written and very misleading.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 6 2006, 12:52 PM)
Also, if the building didn't pancake how do you explain the part of the core still standing well after collapse? We can assume the floors didn't just fly away?
I don't know what is implied by pancake. As far as I know, a planned demolition could include pancaking.
Therefore, I am trying to be cautious about what I would claim.
My eyes tell me that skyscrapers do not disintegrate without careful planning.
Now, I need to follow up that intuition with some mathematics.
Greening looks like a good start.
I didn't know the core was still standing. I suppose it was a small part. In any case, a planned demolition could easily include a core that remained. So I don't see the issue you wish to raise here.
-Astaire
Who is peer reviewing Jones paper? I would like to know.
visiting gatekeeper, you are correct on one thing, they conspiracy theorists are something else.
Have a look at them -
Debunking Conspiracy Theorists
Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11 Detract From Real Issues
-"Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell. Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories."
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm
Have a look at them -
Debunking Conspiracy Theorists
Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11 Detract From Real Issues
-"Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell. Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories."
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm
GOOD JOB NEWTON!!!! Your 911 Eyewitness account has left CSpam shaken AND stirred!!!! Anyway you can cut it out and post it. Is there a link to it?
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 6 2006, 04:08 PM)
Who is peer reviewing Jones paper? I would like to know.
Jones' paper "passed" peer review TWICE! -LOL
1st for a special CTist edition of an obscure Marxist economics journal about 9/11 which only includes articles supporting the "inside job" theory. I wrote the editor but he refused to disclose any information about the reviewers. Jones said he though 2 of them were "engineers" but since he didn't indicate that they were civil engineers I assume they weren't.
It passed peer review "again" for a book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. Griffin was not very forthcoming either and he would only tell me that there were 4 reviewers 2 of whom had PhD's in physics. I asked him if any of the 4 had backgrounds in civil engineering and he replied (LOL) that that was a stupid question because the paper was only marginally related to civil engineering (I'm inclined to agree LOL).
Metamars or newton njd said the paper would have to evaluated by engineers, how true.
Jones' paper "passed" peer review TWICE! -LOL
1st for a special CTist edition of an obscure Marxist economics journal about 9/11 which only includes articles supporting the "inside job" theory. I wrote the editor but he refused to disclose any information about the reviewers. Jones said he though 2 of them were "engineers" but since he didn't indicate that they were civil engineers I assume they weren't.
It passed peer review "again" for a book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. Griffin was not very forthcoming either and he would only tell me that there were 4 reviewers 2 of whom had PhD's in physics. I asked him if any of the 4 had backgrounds in civil engineering and he replied (LOL) that that was a stupid question because the paper was only marginally related to civil engineering (I'm inclined to agree LOL).
Metamars or newton njd said the paper would have to evaluated by engineers, how true.
QUOTE (brian+Apr 6 2006, 04:09 PM)
visiting gatekeeper, you are correct on one thing, they conspiracy theorists are something else.
Have a look at them -
Debunking Conspiracy Theorists
Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11 Detract From Real Issues
-"Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell. Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories."
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm
Great an essay by Gerald Holmgren the guy who believes the WTC towers weren't really hit by planes it was all "blue screen" trickery!!!! LOL
Have a look at them -
Debunking Conspiracy Theorists
Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11 Detract From Real Issues
-"Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell. Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories."
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm
Great an essay by Gerald Holmgren the guy who believes the WTC towers weren't really hit by planes it was all "blue screen" trickery!!!! LOL
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 6 2006, 04:39 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Apr 6 2006, 04:09 PM)
visiting gatekeeper, you are correct on one thing, they conspiracy theorists are something else.
Have a look at them -
Debunking Conspiracy Theorists
Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11 Detract From Real Issues
-"Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell. Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories."
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm
Great an essay by Gerald Holmgren the guy who believes the WTC towers weren't really hit by planes it was all "blue screen" trickery!!!! LOL
At the very least the idea that no planes, or something other than the claimed planes were used, is eminently possible. Some of the bullshit you official conspiracy theorists peddle cannot have the same claim made eh.
The top of the building didn't tip over it merely tilted for a few seconds.
Have a look at them -
Debunking Conspiracy Theorists
Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11 Detract From Real Issues
-"Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell. Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories."
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm
Great an essay by Gerald Holmgren the guy who believes the WTC towers weren't really hit by planes it was all "blue screen" trickery!!!! LOL
At the very least the idea that no planes, or something other than the claimed planes were used, is eminently possible. Some of the bullshit you official conspiracy theorists peddle cannot have the same claim made eh.
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 6 2006, 03:05 PM)
QUOTE
Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself." Robert McNamara said his failure mechanism theory "focuses on the connections that hold the structure together," but he cautioned that "we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures."
The top of the building didn't tip over it merely tilted for a few seconds.
Hi Gatekeeper,
Very well put. However, you probably don't realize that it cuts both ways.
Some of the anti-CTs here use ad hominem as well. Basically we all get frustrated when the other side does not understand the truth the way we do.
When we've seen a "truth" we expect it to be obvious. We think we can explain it and we get frustrated when the other side demonstrates that its not so easy to explain. We of course then intuitively feel it can be blamed on their intellect. We don't want to have to devote the energy necessary to organizing our thoughts and explaining it in a simple convincing manner (of course sometimes this is valid).
Of course, the most exacerbating aspect is that there are so many claims and possibilities that its VERY DIFFICULT to sort through. And we all resent that. Both sides are making honest mistakes and sometimes being intentionally misleading.
CT Internet researchers’/campaigners’ ‘work’ is characterized by the use of Latin, namely ad-hominem and que bono and repeated references to Occam's’s razor by which they hope to add points to their intellect. They slate the FEMA and NIST reports even though they have no qualifications to do so.
This all applies to both sides. Unfortunately, you can't trust information found on the internet. In spite of this, it is still an essential research tool. Like any tool, you need to know how to use it.
Their ‘experts’ and movement ‘heroes’ are, other than the risible Steven E Jones and Judy Woods are not engineers or scientists but philosophers, religion lecturers and economists. Today I hear an actor called Charlie Sheen has contributed his wisdom and life experience!
What is your opinion on F.R. Greening?
Trying to discredit by dropping the names of hollywood actors doesn't seem very scientific. Can't we concentrate on the facts and arguments rather than focusing on who said it?
None of the CTs would ever address the point that in a conspiracy this big and this deadly, not one of the thousands of people that would need to be involved in it has a conscious.
If I address the point, does that mean I am not a CT?
I really want to concentrate on a few scientifically verifiable points. But I'll make an exception for addressing this point.
I don't consider that central power operates the way most of us intuitively think it does. Let me give an example that I will just invent on the spot. I do not intend it as an actual explanation, but as an illustration of what I might call semi-distributed-power.
Ex:
Suppose the hijackers acted exactly as the govt and media have claimed. Suppose the hijackers admit this. And yet we later learn that they believed they were following Bin Laden but they were actually getting their orders from someone else that manipulated them into believing that it was Bin Laden. This person in turn had no intention of attacking the twin towers. He was duped into believing that the attack would occur on Tokyo or the Middle East.
So that is meant to show that not all involved would necessarily have to be "without conscience".
Also, I would further add that it is not even required that there was a single person that master minded all. Its possible that the final result was part accident and part planning.
Anyway, that is my view that hugely complex things can be accomplished without centralized power (as seen in the film the cube).
By the way, the evolution of complex life is possibly an example of this type of ad hoc organization as well.
Note to self. Ignore.
Here is a note to myself:
"There should be no enmity among seekers of the truth." -Aristotelis
-Astaire
Very well put. However, you probably don't realize that it cuts both ways.
Some of the anti-CTs here use ad hominem as well. Basically we all get frustrated when the other side does not understand the truth the way we do.
When we've seen a "truth" we expect it to be obvious. We think we can explain it and we get frustrated when the other side demonstrates that its not so easy to explain. We of course then intuitively feel it can be blamed on their intellect. We don't want to have to devote the energy necessary to organizing our thoughts and explaining it in a simple convincing manner (of course sometimes this is valid).
Of course, the most exacerbating aspect is that there are so many claims and possibilities that its VERY DIFFICULT to sort through. And we all resent that. Both sides are making honest mistakes and sometimes being intentionally misleading.
QUOTE (Visiting 'Gatekeeper'+Apr 6 2006, 03:54 PM)
CT Internet researchers’/campaigners’ ‘work’ is characterized by the use of Latin, namely ad-hominem and que bono and repeated references to Occam's’s razor by which they hope to add points to their intellect. They slate the FEMA and NIST reports even though they have no qualifications to do so.
This all applies to both sides. Unfortunately, you can't trust information found on the internet. In spite of this, it is still an essential research tool. Like any tool, you need to know how to use it.
QUOTE (Visiting 'Gatekeeper'+Apr 6 2006, 03:54 PM)
Their ‘experts’ and movement ‘heroes’ are, other than the risible Steven E Jones and Judy Woods are not engineers or scientists but philosophers, religion lecturers and economists. Today I hear an actor called Charlie Sheen has contributed his wisdom and life experience!
What is your opinion on F.R. Greening?
Trying to discredit by dropping the names of hollywood actors doesn't seem very scientific. Can't we concentrate on the facts and arguments rather than focusing on who said it?
QUOTE (Visiting 'Gatekeeper'+Apr 6 2006, 03:54 PM)
None of the CTs would ever address the point that in a conspiracy this big and this deadly, not one of the thousands of people that would need to be involved in it has a conscious.
If I address the point, does that mean I am not a CT?
I really want to concentrate on a few scientifically verifiable points. But I'll make an exception for addressing this point.
I don't consider that central power operates the way most of us intuitively think it does. Let me give an example that I will just invent on the spot. I do not intend it as an actual explanation, but as an illustration of what I might call semi-distributed-power.
Ex:
Suppose the hijackers acted exactly as the govt and media have claimed. Suppose the hijackers admit this. And yet we later learn that they believed they were following Bin Laden but they were actually getting their orders from someone else that manipulated them into believing that it was Bin Laden. This person in turn had no intention of attacking the twin towers. He was duped into believing that the attack would occur on Tokyo or the Middle East.
So that is meant to show that not all involved would necessarily have to be "without conscience".
Also, I would further add that it is not even required that there was a single person that master minded all. Its possible that the final result was part accident and part planning.
Anyway, that is my view that hugely complex things can be accomplished without centralized power (as seen in the film the cube).
By the way, the evolution of complex life is possibly an example of this type of ad hoc organization as well.
QUOTE (Visiting 'Gatekeeper'+Apr 6 2006, 03:54 PM)
Note to self. Ignore.
Here is a note to myself:
"There should be no enmity among seekers of the truth." -Aristotelis
-Astaire
QUOTE (brian+Apr 6 2006, 04:45 PM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 6 2006, 04:39 PM)
Great an essay by Gerald Holmgren the guy who believes the WTC towers weren't really hit by planes it was all "blue screen" trickery!!!! LOL
At the very least the idea that no planes, or something other than the claimed planes were used, is eminently possible. Some of the bullshit you official conspiracy theorists peddle cannot have the same claim made eh.
I doubt that many of your fellow CT's on this thread would agree with you, explain to me how they managed to blue screen the 767 hitting the South Tower simultaneously on various live broadcasts? Did they use a hologram and some sort of elaborate sound effects to fool all the witnessess at the sene too!!!
You and Newton amuse me to no end!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Ready to address the fall times Len or are you still busy diverting. Here, YID started for you.
Ready to address the fall times Len or are you still busy diverting. Here, YID started for you.
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)
If what you say is true then all it really needs then is some basis by which to show demolition charges going off in a fashion that matchs this laughable graph. So far you got squat other than dust billows from a few windows here and there.
However I direct your attention to what is printed on the graph
"Building Faster Than Free Fall"
and the linear trace labeled
"Building Collapse Speed"
Both of which show an intention to illustrate that the building fell faster than free fall for some time and not that a string of demolition charges were set off.. (unless you wish to admit the producer of the graph is, as you put it, thick)
okay, it's becoming obvious that you're having a mental block of some sort.
i don't say anything FELL faster than free fall.
okay?
Where is the graph from? Is it yours? If not then the author certainly is saying that the building fell faster than free fall for a time. If it is yours then you constructed it in such a way as to illustrate something other than what you intended.
Getting back then to what you claim the graph represents. Once again then you need some evidence to show that demolition charges went off in a linearly timed fashion down the tower in such a way as to have the progression of charges going off be at a rate faster than the falling debris for, what would you say this graph illustrates, 70 % of the way down the building? 50%?
At the very least the idea that no planes, or something other than the claimed planes were used, is eminently possible. Some of the bullshit you official conspiracy theorists peddle cannot have the same claim made eh.
I doubt that many of your fellow CT's on this thread would agree with you, explain to me how they managed to blue screen the 767 hitting the South Tower simultaneously on various live broadcasts? Did they use a hologram and some sort of elaborate sound effects to fool all the witnessess at the sene too!!!
You and Newton amuse me to no end!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
QUOTE
So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically?
Ready to address the fall times Len or are you still busy diverting. Here, YID started for you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically? |
Ready to address the fall times Len or are you still busy diverting. Here, YID started for you.
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)
thanks for the link to this guy, common sense:
the massive explosions were fireballs, and would have little to no effect on the structure.
unless he's talking about some other kind of massive explosions.
say, rove's shill(love the name), exactly what would you like me to link to? i'm a bit of a dunce, sometimes, lol.
QUOTE
Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member.
the massive explosions were fireballs, and would have little to no effect on the structure.
unless he's talking about some other kind of massive explosions.
say, rove's shill(love the name), exactly what would you like me to link to? i'm a bit of a dunce, sometimes, lol.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 04:52 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 6 2006, 04:26 AM)
QUOTE
what the graph shows, is a linear plot, against the plot of an acceleration.
the linear plot represents the timing of the demolition charges.
the curve shows the acceleration of gravity.
it doesn't really need numbers.
the linear plot represents the timing of the demolition charges.
the curve shows the acceleration of gravity.
it doesn't really need numbers.
If what you say is true then all it really needs then is some basis by which to show demolition charges going off in a fashion that matchs this laughable graph. So far you got squat other than dust billows from a few windows here and there.
However I direct your attention to what is printed on the graph
"Building Faster Than Free Fall"
and the linear trace labeled
"Building Collapse Speed"
Both of which show an intention to illustrate that the building fell faster than free fall for some time and not that a string of demolition charges were set off.. (unless you wish to admit the producer of the graph is, as you put it, thick)
okay, it's becoming obvious that you're having a mental block of some sort.
i don't say anything FELL faster than free fall.
okay?
Where is the graph from? Is it yours? If not then the author certainly is saying that the building fell faster than free fall for a time. If it is yours then you constructed it in such a way as to illustrate something other than what you intended.
Getting back then to what you claim the graph represents. Once again then you need some evidence to show that demolition charges went off in a linearly timed fashion down the tower in such a way as to have the progression of charges going off be at a rate faster than the falling debris for, what would you say this graph illustrates, 70 % of the way down the building? 50%?
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 6 2006, 04:36 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 6 2006, 04:08 PM)
Who is peer reviewing Jones paper? I would like to know.
Jones' paper "passed" peer review TWICE! -LOL
1st for a special CTist edition of an obscure Marxist economics journal about 9/11 which only includes articles supporting the "inside job" theory. I wrote the editor but he refused to disclose any information about the reviewers. Jones said he though 2 of them were "engineers" but since he didn't indicate that they were civil engineers I assume they weren't.
It passed peer review "again" for a book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. Griffin was not very forthcoming either and he would only tell me that there were 4 reviewers 2 of whom had PhD's in physics. I asked him if any of the 4 had backgrounds in civil engineering and he replied (LOL) that that was a stupid question because the paper was only marginally related to civil engineering (I'm inclined to agree LOL).
Metamars or newton njd said the paper would have to evaluated by engineers, how true.
There is a clear pattern of Academic Fraud here.
I wonder if further action should be taken again Mr. Jones and Griffin.
I'm going to continue researching.
Jones' paper "passed" peer review TWICE! -LOL
1st for a special CTist edition of an obscure Marxist economics journal about 9/11 which only includes articles supporting the "inside job" theory. I wrote the editor but he refused to disclose any information about the reviewers. Jones said he though 2 of them were "engineers" but since he didn't indicate that they were civil engineers I assume they weren't.
It passed peer review "again" for a book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. Griffin was not very forthcoming either and he would only tell me that there were 4 reviewers 2 of whom had PhD's in physics. I asked him if any of the 4 had backgrounds in civil engineering and he replied (LOL) that that was a stupid question because the paper was only marginally related to civil engineering (I'm inclined to agree LOL).
Metamars or newton njd said the paper would have to evaluated by engineers, how true.
There is a clear pattern of Academic Fraud here.
I wonder if further action should be taken again Mr. Jones and Griffin.
I'm going to continue researching.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 6 2006, 05:42 PM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 6 2006, 04:36 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 6 2006, 04:08 PM)
Who is peer reviewing Jones paper? I would like to know.
Jones' paper "passed" peer review TWICE! -LOL
1st for a special CTist edition of an obscure Marxist economics journal about 9/11 which only includes articles supporting the "inside job" theory. I wrote the editor but he refused to disclose any information about the reviewers. Jones said he though 2 of them were "engineers" but since he didn't indicate that they were civil engineers I assume they weren't.
It passed peer review "again" for a book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. Griffin was not very forthcoming either and he would only tell me that there were 4 reviewers 2 of whom had PhD's in physics. I asked him if any of the 4 had backgrounds in civil engineering and he replied (LOL) that that was a stupid question because the paper was only marginally related to civil engineering (I'm inclined to agree LOL).
Metamars or newton njd said the paper would have to evaluated by engineers, how true.
There is a clear pattern of Academic Fraud here.
I wonder if further action should be taken again Mr. Jones and Griffin.
I'm going to continue researching.
Uhhhhh... yeah, right YID --- blah blah blah
I stated a possibility Foxx. If you reject it all you need do is say so and say why.
You want me to admit that I do not have a full explanation to this? Correct , I do not. Do you?
No, you do not. Is it a square plate of superthermite? How is that thermite held in place Foxx? If it is thermite then one could ask you why the aluminum cladding is not burning or melting since you ask the same question per NIST suggestion that it is burning aluminum.
Ok, from the picture posted do you agree with CSs' version of the truth?
I have no problem with this.
Now you are going to ask why it did not continue rotating, right?
It was pivoting on the lower portion of the tower. Once that lower portion failed the center of mass of the upper section drops, straight down. It also can no longer pivot about the same location. Instead the angular momentum causes it to rotate about its center of mass, which is also moving straight down. At 25 deg tilt then the vast bulk of the upper section is still over the towers as it falls, straight down.
At no point does the upper section have any horizontal momentum.
However some portion of the upper section's mass would be outside the towers and IIRC there was more of WTC 2's debris to the east than in any other direction. It would not be a huge amount since it represents only a fraction of only the top section.
The top section of the north tower experienced much less tilt.
The upper section of the south tower was almost twice the mass of that of the north tower so the mass of the upper section of the south tower less a smaller than 50% portion that is not over the lower section of the tower still means that as much or more mass fell on the lower section of the south tower than did on the lower section of the north tower.
Does that adress the question you were going to ask me next, Rove's Shill?
Jones' paper "passed" peer review TWICE! -LOL
1st for a special CTist edition of an obscure Marxist economics journal about 9/11 which only includes articles supporting the "inside job" theory. I wrote the editor but he refused to disclose any information about the reviewers. Jones said he though 2 of them were "engineers" but since he didn't indicate that they were civil engineers I assume they weren't.
It passed peer review "again" for a book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. Griffin was not very forthcoming either and he would only tell me that there were 4 reviewers 2 of whom had PhD's in physics. I asked him if any of the 4 had backgrounds in civil engineering and he replied (LOL) that that was a stupid question because the paper was only marginally related to civil engineering (I'm inclined to agree LOL).
Metamars or newton njd said the paper would have to evaluated by engineers, how true.
There is a clear pattern of Academic Fraud here.
I wonder if further action should be taken again Mr. Jones and Griffin.
I'm going to continue researching.
QUOTE (Foxx+Apr 6 2006, 01:47 PM)
QUOTE
by YID
A rectangular opening showing a fire behind the columns rather than something rectangular stuck to the outside of the column seems likely.
A rectangular opening showing a fire behind the columns rather than something rectangular stuck to the outside of the column seems likely.
Uhhhhh... yeah, right YID --- blah blah blah
I stated a possibility Foxx. If you reject it all you need do is say so and say why.
You want me to admit that I do not have a full explanation to this? Correct , I do not. Do you?
No, you do not. Is it a square plate of superthermite? How is that thermite held in place Foxx? If it is thermite then one could ask you why the aluminum cladding is not burning or melting since you ask the same question per NIST suggestion that it is burning aluminum.
Hey Newt! I think it is on here already, but if you could link to the 911 eyewitness video I agree with you it has some pretty interesting footage and sound. About the name, CSpam gave it to me over on the pentagon thread. See what happens when you ask too many questions around here. I'm also a MORON.
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 6 2006, 09:31 AM)
Ok, from the picture posted do you agree with CSs' version of the truth?
QUOTE
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled East face) to the East (about 7ºto 8º) and South (about 3ºto 4º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the East wall along the adjacent North and South walls. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the East as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
I have no problem with this.
Now you are going to ask why it did not continue rotating, right?
It was pivoting on the lower portion of the tower. Once that lower portion failed the center of mass of the upper section drops, straight down. It also can no longer pivot about the same location. Instead the angular momentum causes it to rotate about its center of mass, which is also moving straight down. At 25 deg tilt then the vast bulk of the upper section is still over the towers as it falls, straight down.
At no point does the upper section have any horizontal momentum.
However some portion of the upper section's mass would be outside the towers and IIRC there was more of WTC 2's debris to the east than in any other direction. It would not be a huge amount since it represents only a fraction of only the top section.
The top section of the north tower experienced much less tilt.
The upper section of the south tower was almost twice the mass of that of the north tower so the mass of the upper section of the south tower less a smaller than 50% portion that is not over the lower section of the tower still means that as much or more mass fell on the lower section of the south tower than did on the lower section of the north tower.
Does that adress the question you were going to ask me next, Rove's Shill?
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 6 2006, 09:47 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 6 2006, 05:42 PM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 6 2006, 04:36 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 6 2006, 04:08 PM)
Who is peer reviewing Jones paper? I would like to know.
Jones' paper "passed" peer review TWICE! -LOL
1st for a special CTist edition of an obscure Marxist economics journal about 9/11 which only includes articles supporting the "inside job" theory. I wrote the editor but he refused to disclose any information about the reviewers. Jones said he though 2 of them were "engineers" but since he didn't indicate that they were civil engineers I assume they weren't.
It passed peer review "again" for a book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. Griffin was not very forthcoming either and he would only tell me that there were 4 reviewers 2 of whom had PhD's in physics. I asked him if any of the 4 had backgrounds in civil engineering and he replied (LOL) that that was a stupid question because the paper was only marginally related to civil engineering (I'm inclined to agree LOL).
Metamars or newton njd said the paper would have to evaluated by engineers, how true.
There is a clear pattern of Academic Fraud here.
I wonder if further action should be taken again Mr. Jones and Griffin.
I'm going to continue researching.
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/info/regist/fraud_e.html
Interesting....
How about backing up your academic fraud accusation with facts?
Can you produce any evidence of a building which had a 500,000 ton part of a mountain fall directly on a steel building and can you say for certain it didn't have molten metal under it? I don't mean 500,000 tons rolling over it. It's not the same thing.
The building became a the mother of all jack hammers that day as every floor slammed into the next. I have lots of trouble believing that 500,000 ton jack hammer didn't create some mondo heat. I'm sure professor Kausel has the physics to back that up. As for the physics of rev Jones, it's been blasted so many times on this thread for sloppy research it probably could melt steal.
Can you produce any evidence of a building which had a 500,000 ton part of a mountain fall directly on a steel building and can you say for certain it didn't have molten metal under it? I don't mean 500,000 tons rolling over it. It's not the same thing.
The building became a the mother of all jack hammers that day as every floor slammed into the next. I have lots of trouble believing that 500,000 ton jack hammer didn't create some mondo heat. I'm sure professor Kausel has the physics to back that up. As for the physics of rev Jones, it's been blasted so many times on this thread for sloppy research it probably could melt steal.
It was the web page I quoted
No, you didn't "Quote" the web page. You made a statement. That web page says...
Then it goes into what the plausable hypothesis is. Nowhere does that site give the impression that it isn't more than plausibility. I know, I wrote it the lead in. If I've done so on another page I'll correct it if you point it out. That page is clear. The problem you're having is you believe Jones and think his wild analogies are correct. A mountain slide is not 110 story building collapse after a fire. A civil engineer would know the difference.
Then it goes into what the plausable hypothesis is. Nowhere does that site give the impression that it isn't more than plausibility. I know, I wrote it the lead in. If I've done so on another page I'll correct it if you point it out. That page is clear. The problem you're having is you believe Jones and think his wild analogies are correct. A mountain slide is not 110 story building collapse after a fire. A civil engineer would know the difference.
I agree that a building is not at all like a tree.
However, I srongly object to his sloppy claim that buildings CANNOT tip over.
First of all, buildings sometimes do tip over (perhaps slender buildings rarely tip depending on their lack of stiffness).
Secondly, the WTC towers would not have tipped over like a tree. However, pieces would have tipped momentarily so as to cause an asymetric collapse.
Again, this is another example of two dimentional thinking. He never said "ALL buildings can't fall over" he said buildings built like this which are made up mostly of air and pieces bolted together can not tip over much. I totally agree with this conclution. How can a bank of perimeter columns hold the tremendous wieght of a 20-30 story steel office building + contents? I just don't see it...
I meant connections. Bolts, spandrels and such. The columns didn't split in two for the most part. ScottS just finished providing evidence for this.
I meant connections. Bolts, spandrels and such. The columns didn't split in two for the most part. ScottS just finished providing evidence for this.
I don't claim to know what happened. I'd like to get to the point where I could claim to know WHAT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Some of the physics necessary to understand this problem seem simple enough for me to follow it up. For example, I found some papers by F.R. Greening that look very fair, cautious, and straightforward enough to be digested by amateur physicists. What do you think of Greening btw?
He seems alright. If you mean his paper you might want to ask him. He will reply if you E-mail him.
That's because there is enough kintic energy to melt steel. Did it melt steel? He gives an example with physics to back it up. Did it happen exactly the way he says? I bet if you ask him he will tell you he doesn't know either. If Rev. Jones says it can't melt steel I'll agree with the other guy.
That's because there is enough kintic energy to melt steel. Did it melt steel? He gives an example with physics to back it up. Did it happen exactly the way he says? I bet if you ask him he will tell you he doesn't know either. If Rev. Jones says it can't melt steel I'll agree with the other guy.
My eyes tell me that skyscrapers do not disintegrate without careful planning.
My eyes tell me a steel frame building just hit by an airliner, on fire for an hour, with it's fireproofing blown off and perimeter columns slowly pulled in over time, made up of small parts bolted together was doomed. That's also the conclution of peer reviewed papers by professors of civil engineering on the subject. More than one. Not one civil engineer to date has even challanged collapse by fire. Not ONE.
Jones' paper "passed" peer review TWICE! -LOL
1st for a special CTist edition of an obscure Marxist economics journal about 9/11 which only includes articles supporting the "inside job" theory. I wrote the editor but he refused to disclose any information about the reviewers. Jones said he though 2 of them were "engineers" but since he didn't indicate that they were civil engineers I assume they weren't.
It passed peer review "again" for a book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. Griffin was not very forthcoming either and he would only tell me that there were 4 reviewers 2 of whom had PhD's in physics. I asked him if any of the 4 had backgrounds in civil engineering and he replied (LOL) that that was a stupid question because the paper was only marginally related to civil engineering (I'm inclined to agree LOL).
Metamars or newton njd said the paper would have to evaluated by engineers, how true.
There is a clear pattern of Academic Fraud here.
I wonder if further action should be taken again Mr. Jones and Griffin.
I'm going to continue researching.
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/info/regist/fraud_e.html
Interesting....
How about backing up your academic fraud accusation with facts?
QUOTE
Exactly! Not converted to high temperatures. Think of the huge amount of energy in a mountain top or mudslides. You have huge amounts of potential energy that get dissipated. However an avalanche or a mudslide has never melted the steel in buildings that it has bowled over because the heat is being dissipated in a low grade fashion over a huge area (volume actually). There is no mechanism to concentrate the energy into a small space.
If there was a light pole in the path it would get bent. That would produce a small amount of heat (low temperature warming). If you bend the pole back and forth several times rapidly it will get hot to the touch (but I seriously doubt you could get it to melt that way).
In other words, you need mechanisms to concentrate the energy.
If there was a light pole in the path it would get bent. That would produce a small amount of heat (low temperature warming). If you bend the pole back and forth several times rapidly it will get hot to the touch (but I seriously doubt you could get it to melt that way).
In other words, you need mechanisms to concentrate the energy.
Can you produce any evidence of a building which had a 500,000 ton part of a mountain fall directly on a steel building and can you say for certain it didn't have molten metal under it? I don't mean 500,000 tons rolling over it. It's not the same thing.
The building became a the mother of all jack hammers that day as every floor slammed into the next. I have lots of trouble believing that 500,000 ton jack hammer didn't create some mondo heat. I'm sure professor Kausel has the physics to back that up. As for the physics of rev Jones, it's been blasted so many times on this thread for sloppy research it probably could melt steal.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Exactly! Not converted to high temperatures. Think of the huge amount of energy in a mountain top or mudslides. You have huge amounts of potential energy that get dissipated. However an avalanche or a mudslide has never melted the steel in buildings that it has bowled over because the heat is being dissipated in a low grade fashion over a huge area (volume actually). There is no mechanism to concentrate the energy into a small space. If there was a light pole in the path it would get bent. That would produce a small amount of heat (low temperature warming). If you bend the pole back and forth several times rapidly it will get hot to the touch (but I seriously doubt you could get it to melt that way). In other words, you need mechanisms to concentrate the energy. |
Can you produce any evidence of a building which had a 500,000 ton part of a mountain fall directly on a steel building and can you say for certain it didn't have molten metal under it? I don't mean 500,000 tons rolling over it. It's not the same thing.
The building became a the mother of all jack hammers that day as every floor slammed into the next. I have lots of trouble believing that 500,000 ton jack hammer didn't create some mondo heat. I'm sure professor Kausel has the physics to back that up. As for the physics of rev Jones, it's been blasted so many times on this thread for sloppy research it probably could melt steal.
It was the web page I quoted
No, you didn't "Quote" the web page. You made a statement. That web page says...
QUOTE
Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten steel found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.
Then it goes into what the plausable hypothesis is. Nowhere does that site give the impression that it isn't more than plausibility. I know, I wrote it the lead in. If I've done so on another page I'll correct it if you point it out. That page is clear. The problem you're having is you believe Jones and think his wild analogies are correct. A mountain slide is not 110 story building collapse after a fire. A civil engineer would know the difference.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten steel found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible. |
Then it goes into what the plausable hypothesis is. Nowhere does that site give the impression that it isn't more than plausibility. I know, I wrote it the lead in. If I've done so on another page I'll correct it if you point it out. That page is clear. The problem you're having is you believe Jones and think his wild analogies are correct. A mountain slide is not 110 story building collapse after a fire. A civil engineer would know the difference.
I agree that a building is not at all like a tree.
However, I srongly object to his sloppy claim that buildings CANNOT tip over.
First of all, buildings sometimes do tip over (perhaps slender buildings rarely tip depending on their lack of stiffness).
Secondly, the WTC towers would not have tipped over like a tree. However, pieces would have tipped momentarily so as to cause an asymetric collapse.
Again, this is another example of two dimentional thinking. He never said "ALL buildings can't fall over" he said buildings built like this which are made up mostly of air and pieces bolted together can not tip over much. I totally agree with this conclution. How can a bank of perimeter columns hold the tremendous wieght of a 20-30 story steel office building + contents? I just don't see it...
QUOTE
What connection?
I meant connections. Bolts, spandrels and such. The columns didn't split in two for the most part. ScottS just finished providing evidence for this.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What connection? |
I meant connections. Bolts, spandrels and such. The columns didn't split in two for the most part. ScottS just finished providing evidence for this.
I don't claim to know what happened. I'd like to get to the point where I could claim to know WHAT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Some of the physics necessary to understand this problem seem simple enough for me to follow it up. For example, I found some papers by F.R. Greening that look very fair, cautious, and straightforward enough to be digested by amateur physicists. What do you think of Greening btw?
He seems alright. If you mean his paper you might want to ask him. He will reply if you E-mail him.
QUOTE
My quibble was that his scenario made it sound like huge amounts of energy could be released in concentrated ways (his scenario read differently from kausels'). So with a bomb comparison you get the idea that there was high grade energy available to melt steel etc. It was sloppily written and very misleading.
That's because there is enough kintic energy to melt steel. Did it melt steel? He gives an example with physics to back it up. Did it happen exactly the way he says? I bet if you ask him he will tell you he doesn't know either. If Rev. Jones says it can't melt steel I'll agree with the other guy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My quibble was that his scenario made it sound like huge amounts of energy could be released in concentrated ways (his scenario read differently from kausels'). So with a bomb comparison you get the idea that there was high grade energy available to melt steel etc. It was sloppily written and very misleading. |
That's because there is enough kintic energy to melt steel. Did it melt steel? He gives an example with physics to back it up. Did it happen exactly the way he says? I bet if you ask him he will tell you he doesn't know either. If Rev. Jones says it can't melt steel I'll agree with the other guy.
My eyes tell me that skyscrapers do not disintegrate without careful planning.
My eyes tell me a steel frame building just hit by an airliner, on fire for an hour, with it's fireproofing blown off and perimeter columns slowly pulled in over time, made up of small parts bolted together was doomed. That's also the conclution of peer reviewed papers by professors of civil engineering on the subject. More than one. Not one civil engineer to date has even challanged collapse by fire. Not ONE.
QUOTE (astaire+Apr 6 2006, 11:54 AM)
Hi Gatekeeper,
Very well put. However, you probably don't realize that it cuts both ways.
Some of the anti-CTs here use ad hominem as well. Basically we all get frustrated when the other side does not understand the truth the way we do.
When we've seen a "truth" we expect it to be obvious. We think we can explain it and we get frustrated when the other side demonstrates that its not so easy to explain. We of course then intuitively feel it can be blamed on their intellect. We don't want to have to devote the energy necessary to organizing our thoughts and explaining it in a simple convincing manner (of course sometimes this is valid).
Of course, the most exacerbating aspect is that there are so many claims and possibilities that its VERY DIFFICULT to sort through. And we all resent that. Both sides are making honest mistakes and sometimes being intentionally misleading.
CT Internet researchers’/campaigners’ ‘work’ is characterized by the use of Latin, namely ad-hominem and que bono and repeated references to Occam's’s razor by which they hope to add points to their intellect. They slate the FEMA and NIST reports even though they have no qualifications to do so.
This all applies to both sides. Unfortunately, you can't trust information found on the internet. In spite of this, it is still an essential research tool. Like any tool, you need to know how to use it.
Their ‘experts’ and movement ‘heroes’ are, other than the risible Steven E Jones and Judy Woods are not engineers or scientists but philosophers, religion lecturers and economists. Today I hear an actor called Charlie Sheen has contributed his wisdom and life experience!
What is your opinion on F.R. Greening?
Trying to discredit by dropping the names of hollywood actors doesn't seem very scientific. Can't we concentrate on the facts and arguments rather than focusing on who said it?
None of the CTs would ever address the point that in a conspiracy this big and this deadly, not one of the thousands of people that would need to be involved in it has a conscious.
If I address the point, does that mean I am not a CT?
I really want to concentrate on a few scientifically verifiable points. But I'll make an exception for addressing this point.
I don't consider that central power operates the way most of us intuitively think it does. Let me give an example that I will just invent on the spot. I do not intend it as an actual explanation, but as an illustration of what I might call semi-distributed-power.
Ex:
Suppose the hijackers acted exactly as the govt and media have claimed. Suppose the hijackers admit this. And yet we later learn that they believed they were following Bin Laden but they were actually getting their orders from someone else that manipulated them into believing that it was Bin Laden. This person in turn had no intention of attacking the twin towers. He was duped into believing that the attack would occur on Tokyo or the Middle East.
So that is meant to show that not all involved would necessarily have to be "without conscience".
Also, I would further add that it is not even required that there was a single person that master minded all. Its possible that the final result was part accident and part planning.
Anyway, that is my view that hugely complex things can be accomplished without centralized power (as seen in the film the cube).
By the way, the evolution of complex life is possibly an example of this type of ad hoc organization as well.
Note to self. Ignore.
Here is a note to myself:
"There should be no enmity among seekers of the truth." -Aristotelis
-Astaire
astaire, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't say we are both the same. WE don't take dead fireman's quotes out of context for political gain. We don't hack out quotes in an effort to mislead. If you tell me "The buildings never fell by fire" I don't quote you saying "The buildings...fell by fire" That is like a mandatory job requirement for the RCT's. They MUST hack quotes in order to pass this snake oil.
We haven't said we KNOW that happened as others on the RCT side. WE have yet to insert politics into this debate. It's always in response to someone else injecting politics. The collapse wasn't republican or democrat. And if you see my web site you'll realize I don't like what Bush is doing either. I'm a flaming liberal and proud of it.
I think you missed the real people who would have to be in on this. The most notable is the structural engineers in the world who know about this yet haven't come forward with a paper proving what you guys say is obvious. Not even from the countries that hate us. The other is the NYC fire department who lost friends that day. There is no large organization of fireman who want an investigation into CD. No firetrucks parked on NY bridges and tunnels. Why? They are the ones who heard the "Explosions" right? Maybe that's because they may have known what those explosions were. One even said he realized it was the "rivets", Floors building cowing down, electical explosions etc...
You may want to read this from another member.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29873
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884
Very well put. However, you probably don't realize that it cuts both ways.
Some of the anti-CTs here use ad hominem as well. Basically we all get frustrated when the other side does not understand the truth the way we do.
When we've seen a "truth" we expect it to be obvious. We think we can explain it and we get frustrated when the other side demonstrates that its not so easy to explain. We of course then intuitively feel it can be blamed on their intellect. We don't want to have to devote the energy necessary to organizing our thoughts and explaining it in a simple convincing manner (of course sometimes this is valid).
Of course, the most exacerbating aspect is that there are so many claims and possibilities that its VERY DIFFICULT to sort through. And we all resent that. Both sides are making honest mistakes and sometimes being intentionally misleading.
QUOTE (Visiting 'Gatekeeper'+Apr 6 2006, 03:54 PM)
CT Internet researchers’/campaigners’ ‘work’ is characterized by the use of Latin, namely ad-hominem and que bono and repeated references to Occam's’s razor by which they hope to add points to their intellect. They slate the FEMA and NIST reports even though they have no qualifications to do so.
This all applies to both sides. Unfortunately, you can't trust information found on the internet. In spite of this, it is still an essential research tool. Like any tool, you need to know how to use it.
QUOTE (Visiting 'Gatekeeper'+Apr 6 2006, 03:54 PM)
Their ‘experts’ and movement ‘heroes’ are, other than the risible Steven E Jones and Judy Woods are not engineers or scientists but philosophers, religion lecturers and economists. Today I hear an actor called Charlie Sheen has contributed his wisdom and life experience!
What is your opinion on F.R. Greening?
Trying to discredit by dropping the names of hollywood actors doesn't seem very scientific. Can't we concentrate on the facts and arguments rather than focusing on who said it?
QUOTE (Visiting 'Gatekeeper'+Apr 6 2006, 03:54 PM)
None of the CTs would ever address the point that in a conspiracy this big and this deadly, not one of the thousands of people that would need to be involved in it has a conscious.
If I address the point, does that mean I am not a CT?
I really want to concentrate on a few scientifically verifiable points. But I'll make an exception for addressing this point.
I don't consider that central power operates the way most of us intuitively think it does. Let me give an example that I will just invent on the spot. I do not intend it as an actual explanation, but as an illustration of what I might call semi-distributed-power.
Ex:
Suppose the hijackers acted exactly as the govt and media have claimed. Suppose the hijackers admit this. And yet we later learn that they believed they were following Bin Laden but they were actually getting their orders from someone else that manipulated them into believing that it was Bin Laden. This person in turn had no intention of attacking the twin towers. He was duped into believing that the attack would occur on Tokyo or the Middle East.
So that is meant to show that not all involved would necessarily have to be "without conscience".
Also, I would further add that it is not even required that there was a single person that master minded all. Its possible that the final result was part accident and part planning.
Anyway, that is my view that hugely complex things can be accomplished without centralized power (as seen in the film the cube).
By the way, the evolution of complex life is possibly an example of this type of ad hoc organization as well.
QUOTE (Visiting 'Gatekeeper'+Apr 6 2006, 03:54 PM)
Note to self. Ignore.
Here is a note to myself:
"There should be no enmity among seekers of the truth." -Aristotelis
-Astaire
astaire, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't say we are both the same. WE don't take dead fireman's quotes out of context for political gain. We don't hack out quotes in an effort to mislead. If you tell me "The buildings never fell by fire" I don't quote you saying "The buildings...fell by fire" That is like a mandatory job requirement for the RCT's. They MUST hack quotes in order to pass this snake oil.
We haven't said we KNOW that happened as others on the RCT side. WE have yet to insert politics into this debate. It's always in response to someone else injecting politics. The collapse wasn't republican or democrat. And if you see my web site you'll realize I don't like what Bush is doing either. I'm a flaming liberal and proud of it.
QUOTE
Suppose the hijackers acted exactly as the govt and media have claimed. Suppose the hijackers admit this. And yet we later learn that they believed they were following Bin Laden but they were actually getting their orders from someone else that manipulated them into believing that it was Bin Laden. This person in turn had no intention of attacking the twin towers. He was duped into believing that the attack would occur on Tokyo or the Middle East.
So that is meant to show that not all involved would necessarily have to be "without conscience".
So that is meant to show that not all involved would necessarily have to be "without conscience".
I think you missed the real people who would have to be in on this. The most notable is the structural engineers in the world who know about this yet haven't come forward with a paper proving what you guys say is obvious. Not even from the countries that hate us. The other is the NYC fire department who lost friends that day. There is no large organization of fireman who want an investigation into CD. No firetrucks parked on NY bridges and tunnels. Why? They are the ones who heard the "Explosions" right? Maybe that's because they may have known what those explosions were. One even said he realized it was the "rivets", Floors building cowing down, electical explosions etc...
You may want to read this from another member.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29873
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 6 2006, 05:29 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Apr 6 2006, 04:52 AM)
what the graph shows, is a linear plot, against the plot of an acceleration.
the linear plot represents the timing of the demolition charges.
the curve shows the acceleration of gravity.
it doesn't really need numbers.
Where is the graph from? Is it yours? If not then the author certainly is saying that the building fell faster than free fall for a time. If it is yours then you constructed it in such a way as to illustrate something other than what you intended.
Getting back then to what you claim the graph represents. Once again then you need some evidence to show that demolition charges went off in a linearly timed fashion down the tower in such a way as to have the progression of charges going off be at a rate faster than the falling debris for, what would you say this graph illustrates, 70 % of the way down the building? 50%?
since i believe that you are purposely trying to mislead the discussion, i will only rumble with you under my conditions. that goes for all the shills.
and, you may choose the same.
the proper question is, 'was there ANY observable vertical movement occuring faster than freefall at ANY point during the collapse?'
you have agreed that nothing can 'fall' faster than freefall. very good. newton approves.
so, if at any time during the collapse, debris coming from the inside of the building(which incidentally contains a lot of DUST which is certainly lighter and is slowed down by air resistance MUCH more than even light aluminum panels), outpaces the freefalling debris on the outside, then there is clearly another force at work besides gravity.
the graph is not meant to do anything except illustrate how the two spped curves interact.
the picture is only showing you what to look for in the video.
if you had watched the video, you would know that there are two very distinct consecutive plumes which occur in the next few frames after the frames i used to point out the video proof of faster than freefall phenomena.
the blurry video illustrated it quite clearly.
blurry, clear. haha. that's how fuzzy logic works. things are not absolutes. they are more or less. fuzzy logic gives the crispest solution to a complex set of unclear parameters.
the world's not black and white.
once more, the linear plot represents the rate of desruction down the side of the tower.
the curve illustrates an acceleration, which represents freefalling debris. if we plug in numbers, we are fooling ourselves.
stop trying to twist it to mean that something FELL faster than freefall. that has NEVER been the claim.
the linear plot represents the timing of the demolition charges.
the curve shows the acceleration of gravity.
it doesn't really need numbers.
Where is the graph from? Is it yours? If not then the author certainly is saying that the building fell faster than free fall for a time. If it is yours then you constructed it in such a way as to illustrate something other than what you intended.
Getting back then to what you claim the graph represents. Once again then you need some evidence to show that demolition charges went off in a linearly timed fashion down the tower in such a way as to have the progression of charges going off be at a rate faster than the falling debris for, what would you say this graph illustrates, 70 % of the way down the building? 50%?
since i believe that you are purposely trying to mislead the discussion, i will only rumble with you under my conditions. that goes for all the shills.
and, you may choose the same.
the proper question is, 'was there ANY observable vertical movement occuring faster than freefall at ANY point during the collapse?'
you have agreed that nothing can 'fall' faster than freefall. very good. newton approves.
so, if at any time during the collapse, debris coming from the inside of the building(which incidentally contains a lot of DUST which is certainly lighter and is slowed down by air resistance MUCH more than even light aluminum panels), outpaces the freefalling debris on the outside, then there is clearly another force at work besides gravity.
the graph is not meant to do anything except illustrate how the two spped curves interact.
the picture is only showing you what to look for in the video.
if you had watched the video, you would know that there are two very distinct consecutive plumes which occur in the next few frames after the frames i used to point out the video proof of faster than freefall phenomena.
the blurry video illustrated it quite clearly.
blurry, clear. haha. that's how fuzzy logic works. things are not absolutes. they are more or less. fuzzy logic gives the crispest solution to a complex set of unclear parameters.
the world's not black and white.
once more, the linear plot represents the rate of desruction down the side of the tower.
the curve illustrates an acceleration, which represents freefalling debris. if we plug in numbers, we are fooling ourselves.
stop trying to twist it to mean that something FELL faster than freefall. that has NEVER been the claim.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 6 2006, 06:26 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 6 2006, 09:47 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 6 2006, 05:42 PM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 6 2006, 04:36 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Apr 6 2006, 04:08 PM)
Who is peer reviewing Jones paper? I would like to know.
Jones' paper "passed" peer review TWICE! -LOL
1st for a special CTist edition of an obscure Marxist economics journal about 9/11 which only includes articles supporting the "inside job" theory. I wrote the editor but he refused to disclose any information about the reviewers. Jones said he though 2 of them were "engineers" but since he didn't indicate that they were civil engineers I assume they weren't.
It passed peer review "again" for a book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. Griffin was not very forthcoming either and he would only tell me that there were 4 reviewers 2 of whom had PhD's in physics. I asked him if any of the 4 had backgrounds in civil engineering and he replied (LOL) that that was a stupid question because the paper was only marginally related to civil engineering (I'm inclined to agree LOL).
Metamars or newton njd said the paper would have to evaluated by engineers, how true.
There is a clear pattern of Academic Fraud here.
I wonder if further action should be taken again Mr. Jones and Griffin.
I'm going to continue researching.
Jones' paper "passed" peer review TWICE! -LOL
1st for a special CTist edition of an obscure Marxist economics journal about 9/11 which only includes articles supporting the "inside job" theory. I wrote the editor but he refused to disclose any information about the reviewers. Jones said he though 2 of them were "engineers" but since he didn't indicate that they were civil engineers I assume they weren't.
It passed peer review "again" for a book edited by Griffin and P.D. Scott. Griffin was not very forthcoming either and he would only tell me that there were 4 reviewers 2 of whom had PhD's in physics. I asked him if any of the 4 had backgrounds in civil engineering and he replied (LOL) that that was a stupid question because the paper was only marginally related to civil engineering (I'm inclined to agree LOL).
Metamars or newton njd said the paper would have to evaluated by engineers, how true.
There is a clear pattern of Academic Fraud here.
I wonder if further action should be taken again Mr. Jones and Griffin.
I'm going to continue researching.