User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_core.jpg'>User posted image</a>
We in the United States of America must be proud of our controlled demolition Teams experts , to transform the 110 stories of the WTC into just 2 stories of rubble in about ten seconds is an Awesone Excellent proof of our technology ,and is a great opportunity to show to the World the ability we have in the Controlled Demolition field
.
Oh, look! The short bus has arrived!
Grumpy
Grumpy
QUOTE (WTC control demolished+Aug 13 2009, 01:04 PM)
We in the United States of America must be proud of our controlled demolition Teams experts , to transform the 110 stories of the WTC into just 2 stories of rubble in about ten seconds is an Awesone Excellent proof of our technology ,and is a great opportunity to show to the World the ability we have in the Controlled Demolition field.
Whith such an impressive demolition technique, when do expect the adoption of large aircraft impact by the rest of the demolition industry?
QUOTE (Capracus+Aug 14 2009, 09:48 PM)
Whith such an impressive demolition technique, when do expect the adoption of large aircraft impact by the rest of the demolition industry?
The impact of the aircraft do nothing ,the WTC was over reinforced and designed to resist aircraft impact and after the impact of the grai aircargo the building was still there without problem , and two womans went next to the hole produced with the military aircargo to take a breath
The impact of the aircraft do nothing ,the WTC was over reinforced and designed to resist aircraft impact and after the impact of the grai aircargo the building was still there without problem , and two womans went next to the hole produced with the military aircargo to take a breath
QUOTE (WTC control demolished+Aug 14 2009, 10:17 PM)
The impact of the aircraft do nothing ,the WTC was over reinforced and designed to resist aircraft impact and after the impact of the grai aircargo the building was still there without problem , and two womans went next to the hole produced with the military aircargo to take a breath
So all of the smoke and fire that was witnessed for 1-1.5 hours after the impacts was just more of the same pyrotechnics we're treated to at other controlled demolitions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmZJc68zyAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmZJc68zyAA
If with a fire of one hour in two floors of a building was able to bring a 110 stories building down in ten seconds ,and transform the 110 stories in one and a half stories of rubble , the controlled demolition experts were not working hard anymore weeks and weeks installing expensive controlled demolition devices in each single floor of the whole building , they were just using the cheap simple method of burning just two floors for just one hour to bring down the whole buildings , but as far as I know none team of controlled demolition experts use the cheap two floors fire method to bring down buildings , all the controlled demolition experts are still as usual using and installing the controlled demolition devices into each floor to controlled demolish the buildings because they know that with a fire in two floors for about 50 minutes is not possible to controlled demolish and transform a 110 stories building in one and a half stories of rubble
Bizzaro... 
Niels Harrit and 8 other scientists found nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center. He is interviewed on danish TV2 News.
[Moderator: Please see your other post to learn why you have been suspended. But this post is typical of the reasons found.]
[Moderator: Please see your other post to learn why you have been suspended. But this post is typical of the reasons found.]
9/11 meets MonsterQuest
MON AUG 31 9P
NGC conducts a forensic investigation to test the tenets of some of the most common conspiracy theories of 9/11 and mysteries surrounding the attacks.
Read more: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/epis...w#ixzz0PWsZas4R
http://www.history.com/content/monsterquest
MON AUG 31 9P
NGC conducts a forensic investigation to test the tenets of some of the most common conspiracy theories of 9/11 and mysteries surrounding the attacks.
Read more: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/epis...w#ixzz0PWsZas4R
http://www.history.com/content/monsterquest
QUOTE (WTC control demolished+Aug 16 2009, 12:49 PM)
Niels Harrit and 8 other scientists found nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center. He is interviewed on danish TV2 News.
[Moderator: Please see your other post to learn why you have been suspended. But this post is typical of the reasons found.]
I've worked with high explosives for a short time closely as a driller for a blaster doing above ground blasting for construction. After that I studied them quite a bit, as far as their application and characteristics. I was going to take the BATF course, then learned that 2 years of OJT was needed first.
This is what specifications for high explosives look like.
C4 shelf life of 10 years from an explosives manufacturer
http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm
MilSpec: MIL-C-45010A
UK HSE Serial number: 32-A-68450
RDX content: 91 ± 1%
Polyisobutylene plasticiser: 9 ± 1%
Moisture: 0.1% max
Velocity of Detonation: 8092 ± 26 m/s
Density: 1.63 g/cm3
Colour: Nominally white
TNT equivalence: 118%
Chemical marking for detection: Marked
Shelf life: At least 10 years under good conditions
The critical spec is "Velocity of Detonation: 8092 ± 26 m/s"
I have searched for such specifcations for "nano thermite" or "super thermite" and none such exist.
Also, none of those promoting nano thermite describe a feasible method of containment or placement of the charges. Distribution must be described to have a theory. Theories explain things. We have a very distinct series of detonations in the beginning. They are well contained explosions. Very uniform, lower frequency, damped expansions of high pressure gasses.
There was thermite placed (1993 remodel) in the basement, huge quantities of it to produce enough molten steel to leave a thermal mass the size that was there. There simply is no other way. AND, I suggest that more recently, an amount of nano thermite was placed JUST for the purpose of misleading the truth movement. Over information or "burning out" the official targets for tangible theories could easily be the purpose and some are unwittingly being used to promote it.
I've got an email into Niels Harrit but no response is found.
My research into "nano" thermite only finds reference to experimental accelerants for artillery or rifle ammunition or application in artillery fuze. That was about 6 weeks ago, now he google searches have almost no reference to it.
[Moderator: Please see your other post to learn why you have been suspended. But this post is typical of the reasons found.]
I've worked with high explosives for a short time closely as a driller for a blaster doing above ground blasting for construction. After that I studied them quite a bit, as far as their application and characteristics. I was going to take the BATF course, then learned that 2 years of OJT was needed first.
This is what specifications for high explosives look like.
C4 shelf life of 10 years from an explosives manufacturer
http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm
MilSpec: MIL-C-45010A
UK HSE Serial number: 32-A-68450
RDX content: 91 ± 1%
Polyisobutylene plasticiser: 9 ± 1%
Moisture: 0.1% max
Velocity of Detonation: 8092 ± 26 m/s
Density: 1.63 g/cm3
Colour: Nominally white
TNT equivalence: 118%
Chemical marking for detection: Marked
Shelf life: At least 10 years under good conditions
The critical spec is "Velocity of Detonation: 8092 ± 26 m/s"
I have searched for such specifcations for "nano thermite" or "super thermite" and none such exist.
Also, none of those promoting nano thermite describe a feasible method of containment or placement of the charges. Distribution must be described to have a theory. Theories explain things. We have a very distinct series of detonations in the beginning. They are well contained explosions. Very uniform, lower frequency, damped expansions of high pressure gasses.
There was thermite placed (1993 remodel) in the basement, huge quantities of it to produce enough molten steel to leave a thermal mass the size that was there. There simply is no other way. AND, I suggest that more recently, an amount of nano thermite was placed JUST for the purpose of misleading the truth movement. Over information or "burning out" the official targets for tangible theories could easily be the purpose and some are unwittingly being used to promote it.
I've got an email into Niels Harrit but no response is found.
My research into "nano" thermite only finds reference to experimental accelerants for artillery or rifle ammunition or application in artillery fuze. That was about 6 weeks ago, now he google searches have almost no reference to it.
No molten steel was found at Ground Zero. None whatsoever.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 31 2009, 12:28 AM)
No molten steel was found at Ground Zero. None whatsoever.
The thermal measurement by infrared from satellites show a heat source from a matching mass. No other mass adequate to gather heat, ......... and hold it existed. The "controlled demolition company contractor and Leslie E. Robertson both stated they had seen molten steel. Common knowledge.
Would you try to dismiss this common knowledge with nothing?
Images from GZ show a situation on the surface that cannot be anything but the results of working from a pool of molten steel below.
User posted image: User posted image
The thermal measurement by infrared from satellites show a heat source from a matching mass. No other mass adequate to gather heat, ......... and hold it existed. The "controlled demolition company contractor and Leslie E. Robertson both stated they had seen molten steel. Common knowledge.
Would you try to dismiss this common knowledge with nothing?
Images from GZ show a situation on the surface that cannot be anything but the results of working from a pool of molten steel below.
User posted image: User posted image
1) Too many JPG artifacts to credit this image. This is NOT an orginal 204K image -- it has been processed and processed. The original material is not clearly visible.
2) No color calibration, so cannot credit this image.
3) If we assume that the colors are accurate, they imply temperatures (3000K) beyond iron (1780K), steel (1650K), or aluminum (933K) to remain even partially solid. This is a contradiction, therefore we know we cannot rely on the appearant color temperature of the items.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
2) No color calibration, so cannot credit this image.
3) If we assume that the colors are accurate, they imply temperatures (3000K) beyond iron (1780K), steel (1650K), or aluminum (933K) to remain even partially solid. This is a contradiction, therefore we know we cannot rely on the appearant color temperature of the items.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
That "common knowledge" is just a myth. Molten metal was seen in the basement of WTC 6, flowing even. Likely to have been lead from the millions of rounds of target ammunitiion stored there. I have yet to see a reliable copy of the quote, but it is possible that molten metal was seen in the bottom of one or more elevator shafts. That would be Babbit metal, used to secure the ends of elevator cables.
There are no other reliable reports of even molten metal. No solidified puddles of molten steel were found during the cleanup. I've seen a photo of one column member which appears to have become distorted via heat and pressure; red hot is a possible approximate tempeartue, but it actually didn't have to become that hot.
There are no other reliable reports of even molten metal. No solidified puddles of molten steel were found during the cleanup. I've seen a photo of one column member which appears to have become distorted via heat and pressure; red hot is a possible approximate tempeartue, but it actually didn't have to become that hot.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 31 2009, 02:31 AM)
1) Too many JPG artifacts to credit this image. This is NOT an orginal 204K image -- it has been processed and processed. The original material is not clearly visible.
2) No color calibration, so cannot credit this image.
3) If we assume that the colors are accurate, they imply temperatures (3000K) beyond iron (1780K), steel (1650K), or aluminum (933K) to remain even partially solid. This is a contradiction, therefore we know we cannot rely on the appearant color temperature of the items.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
1)It is evidence and may not be dismissed unless in favor of something more compelling. Evidence of the scene takes priority. The detail is good on the excavator grapple. I know what I'm looking at and I've been looking at it for years. I assert that all 9-11 evidence on the web is being compromised as I write in some way. We have less now than we did in 2004. This medium is far too controlled. We are talking about mass murder here.
2)As I said I've seen it many times in many different resolutions. There is no problem with that. there are other corroborating images of men and machines over holes with tremndous brightness emanting from them. They all have the same color basically.
3)The temperature is around 1800F. The piece of steel is eroded very consistent with being plucked from a molten pool.
Most important. Is did you see enough of the images of such work around holes in the sublevels so bright nothing resolved to figure out what exactly the work effort was?
This is an absolute for analysis. The men standing around do have a serious purpose for being there. We should be able to get an idea IF we know something about HOW they they might have to do what they do.
2) No color calibration, so cannot credit this image.
3) If we assume that the colors are accurate, they imply temperatures (3000K) beyond iron (1780K), steel (1650K), or aluminum (933K) to remain even partially solid. This is a contradiction, therefore we know we cannot rely on the appearant color temperature of the items.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
1)It is evidence and may not be dismissed unless in favor of something more compelling. Evidence of the scene takes priority. The detail is good on the excavator grapple. I know what I'm looking at and I've been looking at it for years. I assert that all 9-11 evidence on the web is being compromised as I write in some way. We have less now than we did in 2004. This medium is far too controlled. We are talking about mass murder here.
2)As I said I've seen it many times in many different resolutions. There is no problem with that. there are other corroborating images of men and machines over holes with tremndous brightness emanting from them. They all have the same color basically.
3)The temperature is around 1800F. The piece of steel is eroded very consistent with being plucked from a molten pool.
Most important. Is did you see enough of the images of such work around holes in the sublevels so bright nothing resolved to figure out what exactly the work effort was?
This is an absolute for analysis. The men standing around do have a serious purpose for being there. We should be able to get an idea IF we know something about HOW they they might have to do what they do.
I forgot to mention that I had purposefully tracked the two certain statements of people witnessing molten steel. Mark Lasouix(sp) the demo contractor and L.E. Robertson engineer. For some time I could not get as strong of certainty of the engineer making the statement, but someone showed me something, that proved he had been in the PATH tunnel in sub levels where you could see it.
The one thing is not allowed is to use text assertions in favor of images unless there are prohibitive problems with the image from photoshopping or serious degradation. That image,
http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2169/mo...lenclose5mt.jpg
Is not good at its best. However, I would not classify it as bad either. With the many others showing superbright yellow light coming out of a hole with little or no smoke, there is good corroboration.
We have a duty to remember these things and understand them, preserve the understanding. It is all about feasible explanations. Due process has been violated in 3,000 murders and the US Constitution compromised. If we allow this, what is next? Where does it end?
Now, can any tell what was happening in all of those images where men and machines were cautiously approaching glowing holes at GZ?
The one thing is not allowed is to use text assertions in favor of images unless there are prohibitive problems with the image from photoshopping or serious degradation. That image,
http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2169/mo...lenclose5mt.jpg
Is not good at its best. However, I would not classify it as bad either. With the many others showing superbright yellow light coming out of a hole with little or no smoke, there is good corroboration.
We have a duty to remember these things and understand them, preserve the understanding. It is all about feasible explanations. Due process has been violated in 3,000 murders and the US Constitution compromised. If we allow this, what is next? Where does it end?
Now, can any tell what was happening in all of those images where men and machines were cautiously approaching glowing holes at GZ?
QUOTE (Christophera+Aug 31 2009, 06:14 AM)
The piece of steel is eroded very consistent with being plucked from a molten pool.
QUOTE
Due process has been violated in 3,000 murders and the US Constitution compromised
Gosh... you really don't get it do you?
While you are chasing shadows, the real crime of 9/11 goes unpunished and continues to this day with your unwitting support.
The Twin Towers were attacked by men from Saudi Arabia with links to Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Then, your president attacked Iraq.
Get it?
That's the crime... he didn't need to set up an attack, he just needed to wait for any excuse that he could bend to his purpose. Blowing up the towers was not needed... Americans at that point would have believed any lie.
Do you get it now? By chasing something that didn't happen you are allowing the real crime to go on. It couldn't be clearer.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 31 2009, 06:49 AM)
Gosh... you really don't get it do you?
While you are chasing shadows, the real crime of 9/11 goes unpunished and continues to this day with your unwitting support.
The Twin Towers were attacked by men from Saudi Arabia with links to Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Then, your president attacked Iraq.
Get it?
That's the crime... he didn't need to set up an attack, he just needed to wait for any excuse that he could bend to his purpose. Blowing up the towers was not needed... Americans at that point would have believed any lie.
Do you get it now? By chasing something that didn't happen you are allowing the real crime to go on. It couldn't be clearer.
I'm sorry but this is a technical discussion that relates to Constitutional due process.
There have been many deceptions relating to the cause of death determination for the victims due process rights and our rights.
Americans share their rights you know. It is called "equal protection of the law".
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 31 2009, 06:47 AM)
... of burning iron.
http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm
s. jones doesn't use evidence. Not useful, even in review by another.
There is ample evidence of testimony I've researched, and images from GZ, without bringing in a fraud.
I've been a welder off and on for 35 years and iron does not burn unless you hit it with an adequate amount of oxygen in a jet form. Then it burns and melts the iron along the path of the jet. This is how a cutting torch works.
My salvage experience is quite broadly based and I've come to understand what was happenning in those images.
http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm
s. jones doesn't use evidence. Not useful, even in review by another.
There is ample evidence of testimony I've researched, and images from GZ, without bringing in a fraud.
I've been a welder off and on for 35 years and iron does not burn unless you hit it with an adequate amount of oxygen in a jet form. Then it burns and melts the iron along the path of the jet. This is how a cutting torch works.
My salvage experience is quite broadly based and I've come to understand what was happenning in those images.
QUOTE (Christophera+Aug 31 2009, 06:29 AM)
I forgot to mention that I had purposefully tracked the two certain statements of people witnessing molten steel. Mark Lasouix(sp) the demo contractor and L.E. Robertson engineer. For some time I could not get as strong of certainty of the engineer making the statement, but someone showed me something, that proved he had been in the PATH tunnel in sub levels where you could see it.
Your two witnesses of molten steel both claim to never have personally witnessed such a condition at GZ.
QUOTE (Mark Loizeaux+)
Mr. Bryan:
I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.
Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.
Regards,
==========================
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.
Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.
Regards,
==========================
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
QUOTE (Leslie Robertson+)
I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
As for evidence of nano-thermite, the micron sized Al and Fe found in the WTC debris would have been created through mechanical abrasion during the collapse, or chemically in the debris pile.
Here is more on the nano-thermite claim.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-it-Na...090415-784.html
In this paper by Frank Greening, he speculates that the molten deposits found in the debris pile could either be molten aluminum, or molten slag produced by combustibles in the pile.
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11//html/w....com/Sulfur.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
As for evidence of nano-thermite, the micron sized Al and Fe found in the WTC debris would have been created through mechanical abrasion during the collapse, or chemically in the debris pile.
Here is more on the nano-thermite claim.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-it-Na...090415-784.html
In this paper by Frank Greening, he speculates that the molten deposits found in the debris pile could either be molten aluminum, or molten slag produced by combustibles in the pile.
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11//html/w....com/Sulfur.pdf
QUOTE (Capracus+Aug 31 2009, 01:37 PM)
Your two witnesses of molten steel both claim to never have personally witnessed such a condition at GZ.
QUOTE (Leslie Robertson+)
I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
As for evidence of nano-thermite, the micron sized Al and Fe found in the WTC debris would have been created through mechanical abrasion during the collapse, or chemically in the debris pile.
Here is more on the nano-thermite claim.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-it-Na...090415-784.html
In this paper by Frank Greening, he speculates that the molten deposits found in the debris pile could either be molten aluminum, or molten slag produced by combustibles in the pile.
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11//html/w....com/Sulfur.pdf
TEXT retractions will not suffice. The statements are historical and explanatory. Explanations may be truth, truth is needed for justice, justice protects the Constitution.
The US Constitution is at stake and an infiltration of US government has caused threats to be made to people in order to remove facts from public us in protection of Constitution.
TEXT retractions will not suffice. The statements are historical and explanatory. Explanations may be truth, truth is needed for justice, justice protects the Constitution.
The US Constitution is at stake and an infiltration of US government has caused threats to be made to people in order to remove facts from public us in protection of Constitution.
Thrid party text was sufficient to start. Why is first party text not good enough now?
And maybe you can answer why the crew that pulled off 9/11 could not find WMD in Iraq. I would think that would be easier and more effective.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
As for evidence of nano-thermite, the micron sized Al and Fe found in the WTC debris would have been created through mechanical abrasion during the collapse, or chemically in the debris pile.
Here is more on the nano-thermite claim.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-it-Na...090415-784.html
In this paper by Frank Greening, he speculates that the molten deposits found in the debris pile could either be molten aluminum, or molten slag produced by combustibles in the pile.
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11//html/w....com/Sulfur.pdf
TEXT retractions will not suffice. The statements are historical and explanatory. Explanations may be truth, truth is needed for justice, justice protects the Constitution.
The US Constitution is at stake and an infiltration of US government has caused threats to be made to people in order to remove facts from public us in protection of Constitution.
What would conspiracy nuts do without the internet? Stand on street corners carrying signs?
AlexG
Oh, Chris Mindfreak Brown is much more insane than he appears in his latest posts. Ask him about concrete cores in the Twin Towers. Or his claims that the rebar in the cores were coated wirh C4.
For the complete story of Christophera's idiocy see here.
I really doubt rpenner will put up with him for very long.
Grumpy
PS Christophera-I would refrain totally from accusing others of being complicit or in with the conspiracy here
Oh, Chris Mindfreak Brown is much more insane than he appears in his latest posts. Ask him about concrete cores in the Twin Towers. Or his claims that the rebar in the cores were coated wirh C4.
For the complete story of Christophera's idiocy see here.
I really doubt rpenner will put up with him for very long.
Grumpy
PS Christophera-I would refrain totally from accusing others of being complicit or in with the conspiracy here
Well, even Mark Loizeaux has it wrong.
Know what happens if you dip an excavation tool in molten steel. It melts. Expensive mistake.
What footage does show is an excavator lifting out a piece of steel with hot insulation dripping off the end.
Know what happens if you dip an excavation tool in molten steel. It melts. Expensive mistake.
What footage does show is an excavator lifting out a piece of steel with hot insulation dripping off the end.
QUOTE (Christophera+Aug 31 2009, 06:25 PM)
TEXT retractions will not suffice. The statements are historical and explanatory. Explanations may be truth, truth is needed for justice, justice protects the Constitution.
The US Constitution is at stake and an infiltration of US government has caused threats to be made to people in order to remove facts from public us in protection of Constitution.
Thrid party text was sufficient to start. Why is first party text not good enough now?
And maybe you can answer why the crew that pulled off 9/11 could not find WMD in Iraq. I would think that would be easier and more effective.
The conspirators were able to destroy and quick send to China most of the evidence of the controlled demolition and desintegration of the 9/11 WTC Buildings But Fortunately the bush official administration were not able to collect and destroy ( or quick send to China ) the huge amount of the 911 WTC Dust
This damning finding of unreacted Nano-Thermite High Explosive in the WTC dust has been described by the chief author as discovering a “loaded gun” in addition to the “smoking gun” of widespread iron spherule particles identical to those from explosion of nano-thermite
This damning finding of unreacted Nano-Thermite High Explosive in the WTC dust has been described by the chief author as discovering a “loaded gun” in addition to the “smoking gun” of widespread iron spherule particles identical to those from explosion of nano-thermite
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 31 2009, 11:01 PM)
AlexG
Oh, Chris Mindfreak Brown is much more insane than he appears in his latest posts. Ask him about concrete cores in the Twin Towers. Or his claims that the rebar in the cores were coated wirh C4.
For the complete story of Christophera's idiocy see here.
I really doubt rpenner will put up with him for very long.
Grumpy
PS Christophera-I would refrain totally from accusing others of being complicit or in with the conspiracy here
Your efforts to obfusucate evidence and reason, there and elsewhere, are well documented.
The thread grump links to shows collusion between internet stalkers and forum owners working on disinformation through supporting misinformation. These links prove this assertion and members here fully have the knowledge to understand every aspect substanciated here.
The post
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.ph...4&postcount=333
The thread
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8808&page=34
Another post with the full set of photoshopped images.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.ph...0&postcount=419
The thread.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1114652
And grump was there with its nonsense.
User posted image: User posted image
http://tinypic.com/r/2elyqfo/3
This not intended to change the subject it is to oppose deception generally and inform those seeking truth of just how prominent and obvious a collusive psyops of disinformation truly is.
Oh, Chris Mindfreak Brown is much more insane than he appears in his latest posts. Ask him about concrete cores in the Twin Towers. Or his claims that the rebar in the cores were coated wirh C4.
For the complete story of Christophera's idiocy see here.
I really doubt rpenner will put up with him for very long.
Grumpy
PS Christophera-I would refrain totally from accusing others of being complicit or in with the conspiracy here
Your efforts to obfusucate evidence and reason, there and elsewhere, are well documented.
The thread grump links to shows collusion between internet stalkers and forum owners working on disinformation through supporting misinformation. These links prove this assertion and members here fully have the knowledge to understand every aspect substanciated here.
The post
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.ph...4&postcount=333
The thread
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8808&page=34
Another post with the full set of photoshopped images.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.ph...0&postcount=419
The thread.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1114652
And grump was there with its nonsense.
User posted image: User posted image
http://tinypic.com/r/2elyqfo/3
This not intended to change the subject it is to oppose deception generally and inform those seeking truth of just how prominent and obvious a collusive psyops of disinformation truly is.
Photoshop is the conspiracy nut's friend.
QUOTE (AlexG+Sep 1 2009, 08:59 PM)
Photoshop is the conspiracy nut's friend.
Hmmmmmm cognitive distortions, psyops type stuff.
2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.
10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.
4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
No evidence, no science and no critical thinking. if it was a demo, the perpetrators would like your position.
Hmmmmmm cognitive distortions, psyops type stuff.
2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.
10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.
4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
No evidence, no science and no critical thinking. if it was a demo, the perpetrators would like your position.
I want to know how the bush administration officials can now start the Colossal task to collect and destroy all the World Trade Center Dust , to hide under the rug this evidence of WTC nano-Thermite explosives used to control demolition disintegration of WTC
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 1 2009, 11:00 AM)
Thrid party text was sufficient to start. Why is first party text not good enough now?
Evidence is always needed, and there was none posted.
Evidence is always needed, and there was none posted.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 1 2009, 11:00 AM)
And maybe you can answer why the crew that pulled off 9/11 could not find WMD in Iraq. I would think that would be easier and more effective.
Fabricating high tech weaponry that NATO weapons inspectiors will define as WMD's is a lot harder than pulling off a demoliton and an attack that can be used to justify war. Accordingly the psyops the perpetrators have unleashed on the internet is widespread while the WMD's are exposed as non existent.
Fabricating high tech weaponry that NATO weapons inspectiors will define as WMD's is a lot harder than pulling off a demoliton and an attack that can be used to justify war. Accordingly the psyops the perpetrators have unleashed on the internet is widespread while the WMD's are exposed as non existent.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 31 2009, 11:58 PM)
Well, even Mark Loizeaux has it wrong.
When statements are made by engineering professionals who credibly had access to areas critical to events and researched to the point where there precense is certain, the mere retraction of the statement, if it was explanatory and reasonable, is not acceptable. Particularly when 3,000 people are murdered in 20 seconds or a little more.
When statements are made by engineering professionals who credibly had access to areas critical to events and researched to the point where there precense is certain, the mere retraction of the statement, if it was explanatory and reasonable, is not acceptable. Particularly when 3,000 people are murdered in 20 seconds or a little more.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 31 2009, 11:58 PM)
Know what happens if you dip an excavation tool in molten steel. It melts. Expensive mistake.
The tool in the image is not an "excavation tool", it is a demolition tool attached to a machine called a hydraulic excavator. The tool is called a "grapple".
If you had examined GZ images with an open mind and the experience to recognize equipment and impliments they might use, and know how they are used, you would have seen images with 2 excavators in the image. One working in the brightly lit hole over the pool of molten metal, and the other with it's turntable rotated away from the hole with its boom extend out, the grapple on the ground and a firefighter cooling it with a fire nozzle.
Steel does not turn to liquid immediately. A grapple that size has fingers about 2 inches thick. Such a mass of steel would take perhaps 5 minutes of steady immersion in molten steel before it woul irreparably damaged. An operator can dip into the pool and grap a pice of steel in less than 10 seconds immersion in the molten steel. After about 10 minutes of that type operation, the grapple AND boom AND hydraulic cylinders are cooled off with water. Two excavators keep a constant cooling action by dropping clod steel in and then retrieving it.
The tool in the image is not an "excavation tool", it is a demolition tool attached to a machine called a hydraulic excavator. The tool is called a "grapple".
If you had examined GZ images with an open mind and the experience to recognize equipment and impliments they might use, and know how they are used, you would have seen images with 2 excavators in the image. One working in the brightly lit hole over the pool of molten metal, and the other with it's turntable rotated away from the hole with its boom extend out, the grapple on the ground and a firefighter cooling it with a fire nozzle.
Steel does not turn to liquid immediately. A grapple that size has fingers about 2 inches thick. Such a mass of steel would take perhaps 5 minutes of steady immersion in molten steel before it woul irreparably damaged. An operator can dip into the pool and grap a pice of steel in less than 10 seconds immersion in the molten steel. After about 10 minutes of that type operation, the grapple AND boom AND hydraulic cylinders are cooled off with water. Two excavators keep a constant cooling action by dropping clod steel in and then retrieving it.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 31 2009, 11:58 PM)
What footage does show is an excavator lifting out a piece of steel with hot insulation dripping off the end.
Insulation? Such as what melts/burns at 300+ degrees. Vaporizing. Such is not a reasonable suggestion by any measure.
Insulation? Such as what melts/burns at 300+ degrees. Vaporizing. Such is not a reasonable suggestion by any measure.
QUOTE (tomfrance+Sep 1 2009, 09:08 PM)
I want to know how the bush administration officials can now start the Colossal task to collect and destroy all the World Trade Center Dust , to hide under the rug this evidence of WTC nano-Thermite explosives used to control demolition disintegration of WTC
I'll ask you as well.
How is it that the people that could pull off 9/11 could not find WMD in Iraq?
That would be easier than 9/11.
And they would not have even needed 9/11.
Just have some SEALS pour some stuff in a river that flows out of Iraq and go in on humanitarian grounds. Especially considering GWI was never over officially.
I'll ask you as well.
How is it that the people that could pull off 9/11 could not find WMD in Iraq?
That would be easier than 9/11.
And they would not have even needed 9/11.
Just have some SEALS pour some stuff in a river that flows out of Iraq and go in on humanitarian grounds. Especially considering GWI was never over officially.
QUOTE (tomfrance+Sep 1 2009, 09:08 PM)
I want to know how the bush administration officials can now start the Colossal task to collect and destroy all the World Trade Center Dust ,
Tom,
Your point is well made, in the spirit of seeking reasonable explanation, which I noticed none here have ever attempted to logically explain the dusts size and amount.
To turn concrete into that fine of dust take immense pressures, such as what typically comes with concrete in very close proximity to the center of a blast. Very well contained explosions can create extremely high pressures at slightly further distainces from the detontions center, whic dramatically increases the quantitiy of super fine dust.
from
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=Pos...02&f=10&t=12383
This is what I was talking about. And again I ask why would someone expect that there would be NO period of free fall in a building collapse?
It was not in free fall while the internal structures were giving way. Then after they were out of the way, the building fell in free fall for a period of time. Why would it not? Then it started hitting debris and slowed from free fall again.
Tom,
Your point is well made, in the spirit of seeking reasonable explanation, which I noticed none here have ever attempted to logically explain the dusts size and amount.
To turn concrete into that fine of dust take immense pressures, such as what typically comes with concrete in very close proximity to the center of a blast. Very well contained explosions can create extremely high pressures at slightly further distainces from the detontions center, whic dramatically increases the quantitiy of super fine dust.
QUOTE (tomfrance+Sep 1 2009, 09:08 PM)
to hide under the rug this evidence of WTC nano-Thermite explosives used to control demolition disintegration of WTC
Here are the perfomance specifications for a very powerful explosive material that has been in use for perhaps up to 70 years with very well documented characteristics.
http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm
MilSpec: MIL-C-45010A
UK HSE Serial number: 32-A-68450
RDX content: 91 ± 1%
Polyisobutylene plasticiser: 9 ± 1%
Moisture: 0.1% max
Velocity of Detonation: 8092 ± 26 m/s
Density: 1.63 g/cm3
Colour: Nominally white
TNT equivalence: 118%
Chemical marking for detection: Marked
Shelf life: At least 10 years under good conditions
In my research on "nano thermite" I have not found any such performance charcteristics identifying a high explosive. I did find some published patents and some research that identified "nano thermite" as a new accelerant for artillery or as a fuze for the same. I also found that it was considered for a new propellent for rifle ammunition.
I did find a recent FOIA directed at pretty much the correct authority, and they have no information whatsoever and as the naval surface warfare center at indianhead base indicates.
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/8...chine88/IH1.jpg
There are those that would suggest that all military statements are suspect. I cannot go along with the statements because of the extreme danger that US service people face and the nature of the "soldiers oath".
There is not doubt in my mind that massive quatities of ordinary incindiary thermite was used in the basement and first floor because of the quantity of molten metal that was dealt with for weeks at GZ. And, notice that the absolutely unsupportable assertion that fires from debris cause the heat is the only explanation offered besides efforts to dismiss the considerable evidence of all types showing molten metal.
As far as I can discern, pretty much everything over the ground, with the exception of the east side of WTC 2 for a time showing molten steel flowing out of a floor, was all effected by a high explosive with very high brisance such as C4.
Here are the perfomance specifications for a very powerful explosive material that has been in use for perhaps up to 70 years with very well documented characteristics.
http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm
MilSpec: MIL-C-45010A
UK HSE Serial number: 32-A-68450
RDX content: 91 ± 1%
Polyisobutylene plasticiser: 9 ± 1%
Moisture: 0.1% max
Velocity of Detonation: 8092 ± 26 m/s
Density: 1.63 g/cm3
Colour: Nominally white
TNT equivalence: 118%
Chemical marking for detection: Marked
Shelf life: At least 10 years under good conditions
In my research on "nano thermite" I have not found any such performance charcteristics identifying a high explosive. I did find some published patents and some research that identified "nano thermite" as a new accelerant for artillery or as a fuze for the same. I also found that it was considered for a new propellent for rifle ammunition.
I did find a recent FOIA directed at pretty much the correct authority, and they have no information whatsoever and as the naval surface warfare center at indianhead base indicates.
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/8...chine88/IH1.jpg
There are those that would suggest that all military statements are suspect. I cannot go along with the statements because of the extreme danger that US service people face and the nature of the "soldiers oath".
There is not doubt in my mind that massive quatities of ordinary incindiary thermite was used in the basement and first floor because of the quantity of molten metal that was dealt with for weeks at GZ. And, notice that the absolutely unsupportable assertion that fires from debris cause the heat is the only explanation offered besides efforts to dismiss the considerable evidence of all types showing molten metal.
As far as I can discern, pretty much everything over the ground, with the exception of the east side of WTC 2 for a time showing molten steel flowing out of a floor, was all effected by a high explosive with very high brisance such as C4.
Chrismindfreakbrown
I call foul on this excrement spewing liar. He calls everyone who does not buy his lies colluders, fellow travellers and complicit coconspiritors in his mind fu__ed delusion of a plot. Send this notoriously insane douchebag packing with his inane prattle shoved so firmly up his anus that it will require he swallow a pound of C4 to be able to dislodge it. Maybe that will stop him from taking a dump in every thread he posts in, even the troother dweebs won't put up with him.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Your efforts to obfusucate evidence and reason, there and elsewhere, are well documented.
The thread grump links to shows collusion between internet stalkers and forum owners working on disinformation through supporting misinformation. These links prove this assertion and members here fully have the knowledge to understand every aspect substanciated here.
[snip blatant spam snip]
This not intended to change the subject it is to oppose deception generally and inform those seeking truth of just how prominent and obvious a collusive psyops of disinformation truly is.
The thread grump links to shows collusion between internet stalkers and forum owners working on disinformation through supporting misinformation. These links prove this assertion and members here fully have the knowledge to understand every aspect substanciated here.
[snip blatant spam snip]
This not intended to change the subject it is to oppose deception generally and inform those seeking truth of just how prominent and obvious a collusive psyops of disinformation truly is.
I call foul on this excrement spewing liar. He calls everyone who does not buy his lies colluders, fellow travellers and complicit coconspiritors in his mind fu__ed delusion of a plot. Send this notoriously insane douchebag packing with his inane prattle shoved so firmly up his anus that it will require he swallow a pound of C4 to be able to dislodge it. Maybe that will stop him from taking a dump in every thread he posts in, even the troother dweebs won't put up with him.
Grumpy
QUOTE (tomfrance+Sep 1 2009, 06:27 PM)
... explosion of nano-thermite
LMAO
LMAO
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 2 2009, 12:32 AM)
LMAO
Such a position makes it easy to consider that IF what has been called"nano thermite" was found near the WTC, it was planted so that people who know the sciences could debunk it. A straw man put there to allow marginalization of potential of demo again, yet one more time.
In this way, particularly when presenting it to officials as "justification" for re opening the investigation, the opportunity for an open minded reception for other, perhaps meaningful information is reduced. Essentially wearing out the information conduit before something meaningful comes along.
Such a position makes it easy to consider that IF what has been called"nano thermite" was found near the WTC, it was planted so that people who know the sciences could debunk it. A straw man put there to allow marginalization of potential of demo again, yet one more time.
In this way, particularly when presenting it to officials as "justification" for re opening the investigation, the opportunity for an open minded reception for other, perhaps meaningful information is reduced. Essentially wearing out the information conduit before something meaningful comes along.
This is becoming very very intresting , day by day thousands of people everywhere become aware that the World Trade Center was Controlled Demolished by the bush administration officials , more and more scientists all over the world are studing the World Trade Center evidence ( nano-thermite in the WTC dust ) , this is becoming a very hard time to our lovely bush administration officials and now this bush officials must not only face the judicial examination to be accountable for torture , soon this murders will face the trial to be accountable of the World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Disintegration
QUOTE (tomfrance+Sep 2 2009, 05:28 AM)
This is becoming very very intresting , day by day thousands of people everywhere become aware that the World Trade Center was Controlled Demolished by the bush administration officials , more and more scientists all over the world are studing the World Trade Center evidence ( nano-thermite in the WTC dust ) , this is becoming a very hard time to our lovely bush administration officials and now this bush officials must not only face the judicial examination to be accountable for torture , soon this murders will face the trial to be accountable of the World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Disintegration
As I've said, the "nano thermite" if shortened to "thermite" is very functional. "nano" is the tip off to those that would deny demolition to begin ridicule because "nano" cannot be show to exist. Another aspect almost forgotten within the "silver bullet nano" thing. is that not one proponent of such has come up with a feasible placement scheme.
Such is absolutely needed no matter what kind of HE is used. The faster it is the more important containment is because there are some fairly decent audio recordings and whatever is proposed must match te recordings with their auditory potential. They differ greatly from an uncontained blast of any kind such as a of which has very little.
Suddenly there is an immense issue with containment and distribution.
Those supporting that the means of mass murder remain secret know that the government agencies not under the Constitution but in control, have promoted a situation where they have developed and intergrated a psyops of infiltration of the truth movement that proposes what is impossible in order to obscure what is possible.
For example. A very prominant feature of 9-11 talked about by firefighters of Engine No. 7
As I've said, the "nano thermite" if shortened to "thermite" is very functional. "nano" is the tip off to those that would deny demolition to begin ridicule because "nano" cannot be show to exist. Another aspect almost forgotten within the "silver bullet nano" thing. is that not one proponent of such has come up with a feasible placement scheme.
Such is absolutely needed no matter what kind of HE is used. The faster it is the more important containment is because there are some fairly decent audio recordings and whatever is proposed must match te recordings with their auditory potential. They differ greatly from an uncontained blast of any kind such as a of which has very little.
Suddenly there is an immense issue with containment and distribution.
Those supporting that the means of mass murder remain secret know that the government agencies not under the Constitution but in control, have promoted a situation where they have developed and intergrated a psyops of infiltration of the truth movement that proposes what is impossible in order to obscure what is possible.
For example. A very prominant feature of 9-11 talked about by firefighters of Engine No. 7
Removed to avoid duplication.
Ooops, a link did not make it into the 2nd paragraph.
Such is absolutely needed no matter what kind of HE is used. The faster it is the more important containment is because there are some fairly decent audio recordings and whatever is proposed must match te recordings with their auditory potential. They differ greatly from an uncontained blast of any kind such as a Linear shaped charge
Such is absolutely needed no matter what kind of HE is used. The faster it is the more important containment is because there are some fairly decent audio recordings and whatever is proposed must match te recordings with their auditory potential. They differ greatly from an uncontained blast of any kind such as a Linear shaped charge
Since my post got buried by the page turning I thought I would add it back here. Sorry if that is a problem to anyone. Considering how silly the topic is, I don't think it will matter too much.
So...
One 9/11 nut thinks that the nano-thermite was planted there after the demolition and the other considers the presence of nano-thermite evidence that the towers were demolished.
One of the most obvious facts of this whole 9/11 conspiracy delusion is that the various people who believe in it all interpret their so called "evidence" in a wide variety of ways... all of them absolutely sure that they are correct despite being at odds with all the other interpretations.
Let's see what we got ...
QUOTE
LIHOP ("let it happen on purpose") - suggests that key individuals within the government had at least some foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignored them or actively weakened America's defenses to ensure the hijacked flights were not intercepted.[
QUOTE
MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") - that key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with or framed, al-Qaeda in carrying them out. There is a range of opinions about how this might have been achieved
QUOTE
In April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and eight other authors, published a paper that claims nano-sized "chips" consisting of unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite are present in the samples of the dust.[69]
QUOTE
Some theories suggest that, rather than having preset routes entered into the planes' on-board computers, the planes were flown by remote control.
QUOTE
Nico Haupt and Morgan Reynolds, formerly the chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration argue that no planes were used in the attacks. Reynolds claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175, being largely aluminium, could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers.[citation needed], and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video.[citation needed]. "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is." According to David Shayler, "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes,"
QUOTE
David Icke argues that reptilian, shape-shifting extraterrestrial humanoids are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to Icke, a reptilian global elite is behind all things that occur in the world
That's only a few of them ... there are a lot more, such as the one earlier linked that the WTC towers were built to be demolished, etc.
The interesting thing is that many of these theories are contradictory, therefore it's quite arguable that the people who came up with them simply misunderstand the physical evidence and interpret it in whichever way suits their personal theory best.
Let's face it... the government did not need 9/11 to accomplish it's goals, American stupidity would have served (and did serve) just as well. There is no purpose in it.. therefore it's unlikely that such a plan would have been hatched... let alone having it suck up an almost staggering amount of gvt resources.
So...
One 9/11 nut thinks that the nano-thermite was planted there after the demolition and the other considers the presence of nano-thermite evidence that the towers were demolished.
One of the most obvious facts of this whole 9/11 conspiracy delusion is that the various people who believe in it all interpret their so called "evidence" in a wide variety of ways... all of them absolutely sure that they are correct despite being at odds with all the other interpretations.
Let's see what we got ...
QUOTE
LIHOP ("let it happen on purpose") - suggests that key individuals within the government had at least some foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignored them or actively weakened America's defenses to ensure the hijacked flights were not intercepted.[
QUOTE
MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") - that key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with or framed, al-Qaeda in carrying them out. There is a range of opinions about how this might have been achieved
QUOTE
In April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and eight other authors, published a paper that claims nano-sized "chips" consisting of unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite are present in the samples of the dust.[69]
QUOTE
Some theories suggest that, rather than having preset routes entered into the planes' on-board computers, the planes were flown by remote control.
QUOTE
Nico Haupt and Morgan Reynolds, formerly the chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration argue that no planes were used in the attacks. Reynolds claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175, being largely aluminium, could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers.[citation needed], and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video.[citation needed]. "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is." According to David Shayler, "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes,"
QUOTE
David Icke argues that reptilian, shape-shifting extraterrestrial humanoids are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to Icke, a reptilian global elite is behind all things that occur in the world
That's only a few of them ... there are a lot more, such as the one earlier linked that the WTC towers were built to be demolished, etc.
The interesting thing is that many of these theories are contradictory, therefore it's quite arguable that the people who came up with them simply misunderstand the physical evidence and interpret it in whichever way suits their personal theory best.
Let's face it... the government did not need 9/11 to accomplish it's goals, American stupidity would have served (and did serve) just as well. There is no purpose in it.. therefore it's unlikely that such a plan would have been hatched... let alone having it suck up an almost staggering amount of gvt resources.
This is the opinion about the controlled demolition disintegration of the WTC of a firefighter
"You have two 110-story office buildings: you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, a computer... the biggest piece of a telephone I found was half a keypad, and it was this big (holds up thumb and forefinger). The WTC buildings disintegrated to dust."
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for presenting anecdotes when what is desired is a logical argument supported by evidence for a position. Note, when a 110 story building collapses what is the average energy density per kilogram? Over 2 kJ/kg or for a 450 Gg combined mass about 220 tons of TNT effect just from falling. But because this is just an average, 20 people were pulled alive from the wreckage.]
"You have two 110-story office buildings: you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, a computer... the biggest piece of a telephone I found was half a keypad, and it was this big (holds up thumb and forefinger). The WTC buildings disintegrated to dust."
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for presenting anecdotes when what is desired is a logical argument supported by evidence for a position. Note, when a 110 story building collapses what is the average energy density per kilogram? Over 2 kJ/kg or for a 450 Gg combined mass about 220 tons of TNT effect just from falling. But because this is just an average, 20 people were pulled alive from the wreckage.]
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 2 2009, 06:14 AM)
One 9/11 nut thinks that the nano-thermite was planted there after the demolition and the other considers the presence of nano-thermite evidence that the towers were demolished.
One of the most obvious facts of this whole 9/11 conspiracy delusion is that the various people who believe in it all interpret their so called "evidence" in a wide variety of ways... all of them absolutely sure that they are correct despite being at odds with all the other interpretations.
Let's see what we got ...
Wow, loads of cognitive distortions. Hard to do actual logic with those.
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for failing to engage and attempting to evade responsibility for the burden of proof. Having posited a conspiracy, one must demonstrate the model and the predictions it makes.]
One of the most obvious facts of this whole 9/11 conspiracy delusion is that the various people who believe in it all interpret their so called "evidence" in a wide variety of ways... all of them absolutely sure that they are correct despite being at odds with all the other interpretations.
Let's see what we got ...
Wow, loads of cognitive distortions. Hard to do actual logic with those.
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for failing to engage and attempting to evade responsibility for the burden of proof. Having posited a conspiracy, one must demonstrate the model and the predictions it makes.]
QUOTE (Christophera+Sep 2 2009, 05:10 AM)
Such a position makes it easy to consider that IF what has been called"nano thermite" was found near the WTC, it was planted so that people who know the sciences could debunk it. A straw man put there to allow marginalization of potential of demo again, yet one more time.
In this way, particularly when presenting it to officials as "justification" for re opening the investigation, the opportunity for an open minded reception for other, perhaps meaningful information is reduced. Essentially wearing out the information conduit before something meaningful comes along.
I think what he was getting at is that thermite is not an explosive.
In this way, particularly when presenting it to officials as "justification" for re opening the investigation, the opportunity for an open minded reception for other, perhaps meaningful information is reduced. Essentially wearing out the information conduit before something meaningful comes along.
I think what he was getting at is that thermite is not an explosive.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 2 2009, 02:53 AM)
That the drippy stuff was insulation was pointed out by an engineer.
Mineral wool temperatures
I guess it depends on the debris pile temperatures below the surface. The USGS measured surface temperatures up to about 750 C. If temperatures in the pile were at least 1100 C, then materials such as rock wool from the insulation, and copper from the wiring could be sources. At temperatures around 700 C, aluminum from the exterior cladding would fit. Zinc used in the plating of the floor pans, the electrical conduit, and the partition studs has a melting point of 420 C, and zinc dust was abundant at the site.
Mineral wool temperatures
I guess it depends on the debris pile temperatures below the surface. The USGS measured surface temperatures up to about 750 C. If temperatures in the pile were at least 1100 C, then materials such as rock wool from the insulation, and copper from the wiring could be sources. At temperatures around 700 C, aluminum from the exterior cladding would fit. Zinc used in the plating of the floor pans, the electrical conduit, and the partition studs has a melting point of 420 C, and zinc dust was abundant at the site.
Using good measurements of the antenna tower for the first 3.7 seconds, extensive computerr experimentation suggests that the best model for WTC 1 collpase is a vertical avalanche. It effect contiuosly recrushing and grinding everything expect the large structural steel members.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 2 2009, 11:12 PM)
Approximate Temperature of Steel by Color
Grappler with steel about 1/2 way down page
As for the grappler photo, at 1000 C, all of the metals picked up by the grappler will glow yellow, and some will be molten, but none of the molten materials will be steel.
Grappler with steel about 1/2 way down page
As for the grappler photo, at 1000 C, all of the metals picked up by the grappler will glow yellow, and some will be molten, but none of the molten materials will be steel.
QUOTE (Capracus+Sep 2 2009, 05:41 PM)
As for the grappler photo, at 1000 C, all of the metals picked up by the grappler will glow yellow, and some will be molten, but none of the molten materials will be steel.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Eight years tomorrow.
2 hardened cockpit doors - 8 yrs = 2750 lives spared.
In a little over an hour(as I type this)it will have been 8 years since 11 religious fanatics attacked our country, killing thousands in their hatred. Will the world ever wake up to the evil committed in some god's name???
Let us remember the victims of this act, the victims in Germany, Poland, the Balkans, Isreal and Palestine, Darfor, Ireland, India, Iraq, Afghanistan and every other religiously inspired Holocaust perpetrated by men. Let us also remember our troops who have been misused by politically ambitious men who wiggled out of service themselves when their time came, lied to the country to start unnecessary wars and sacrificed their lives so their freinds could get rich on the wars.
Grumpy
Let us remember the victims of this act, the victims in Germany, Poland, the Balkans, Isreal and Palestine, Darfor, Ireland, India, Iraq, Afghanistan and every other religiously inspired Holocaust perpetrated by men. Let us also remember our troops who have been misused by politically ambitious men who wiggled out of service themselves when their time came, lied to the country to start unnecessary wars and sacrificed their lives so their freinds could get rich on the wars.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 11 2009, 11:40 AM)
Let us also remember our troops who have been misused by politically ambitious men who wiggled out of service themselves when their time came, lied to the country to start unnecessary wars and sacrificed their lives so their freinds could get rich on the wars.
I second that.
Remember also the targets of the bombs and bullets, delivered by these same troops, that shatter life and limb. People inside their homes, inside their own borders, that have never taken up arms against the US.
I second that.
Remember also the targets of the bombs and bullets, delivered by these same troops, that shatter life and limb. People inside their homes, inside their own borders, that have never taken up arms against the US.
What OneWhiteEye just wrote.
QUOTE (Fizical+Sep 12 2009, 09:02 AM)
Okay fact fans, buckle your seat belts: [NOTE - this site doesnt not (currently) give me permission to post links - change the [DOT] for a real .
Admition of "low probability that fires cause the collapse of WTC7:
fema[DOT]gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Last sentence before section 5.7 states "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. "
then Section 5.7 at the end of the 3rd para "Although tth total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence"
Fizical,
The NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC 7 concluded that:
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city’s water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building’s collapse began.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factshe..._qa_082108.html All other speculation as to particular causes and behaviors are addressed in the Q&A site linked above, or the Final Report linked below.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_f...lic_comment.pdf
Admition of "low probability that fires cause the collapse of WTC7:
fema[DOT]gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Last sentence before section 5.7 states "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. "
then Section 5.7 at the end of the 3rd para "Although tth total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence"
Fizical,
The NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC 7 concluded that:
QUOTE
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city’s water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building’s collapse began.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factshe..._qa_082108.html
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_f...lic_comment.pdf
QUOTE
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
from
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=Pos...02&f=10&t=12383
This is what I was talking about. And again I ask why would someone expect that there would be NO period of free fall in a building collapse?
It was not in free fall while the internal structures were giving way. Then after they were out of the way, the building fell in free fall for a period of time. Why would it not? Then it started hitting debris and slowed from free fall again.
QUOTE (Capracus+Sep 12 2009, 10:03 AM)
The NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC 7 concluded that: All other speculation as to particular causes and behaviors are addressed in the Q&A site linked above, or the Final Report linked below.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_f...lic_comment.pdf
ALL SCENRIOS's were NOT addressed, particularly mutilpe explsive devices.
From the link you posted on NIST's final report:
"Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario explosive location. This involved preliminary cutting of Column 79 and the use of 4kg (9lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to carry out without detection."
The key failure in this report is that don't even investigate the possibility of multiple explovies because it's "unfeasable" i.e. They are dismissing it immediately based on the assumtion that a conspiracy is not possible.
That is not scientific, that is a cover up.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_f...lic_comment.pdf
ALL SCENRIOS's were NOT addressed, particularly mutilpe explsive devices.
From the link you posted on NIST's final report:
"Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario explosive location. This involved preliminary cutting of Column 79 and the use of 4kg (9lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to carry out without detection."
The key failure in this report is that don't even investigate the possibility of multiple explovies because it's "unfeasable" i.e. They are dismissing it immediately based on the assumtion that a conspiracy is not possible.
That is not scientific, that is a cover up.
Why do you expect a building collapse to not have a period of freefall?
Either that is the heart of your arguement or "it must have been a conspiracy" is the the heart of your arguement.
Either that is the heart of your arguement or "it must have been a conspiracy" is the the heart of your arguement.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 12 2009, 11:24 AM)
And again I ask why would someone expect that there would be NO period of free fall in a building collapse?
It was not in free fall while the internal structures were giving way. Then after they were out of the way, the building fell in free fall for a period of time. Why would it not? Then it started hitting debris and slowed from free fall again.
It was in freefall for approx 100 feet (no links, this is just what I remeber from measurments of the video analysis)
For you hypothesis to ring true there it would need to be possible for 100 feet of the structure to fail in one go. Is there any evidence to support this possibilty? (i'm assuming that answer should be in their structural analysis model...?)
Anyy links to prove the structural analysis model they talk about? and has it been indepdantly verified?
It was not in free fall while the internal structures were giving way. Then after they were out of the way, the building fell in free fall for a period of time. Why would it not? Then it started hitting debris and slowed from free fall again.
It was in freefall for approx 100 feet (no links, this is just what I remeber from measurments of the video analysis)
For you hypothesis to ring true there it would need to be possible for 100 feet of the structure to fail in one go. Is there any evidence to support this possibilty? (i'm assuming that answer should be in their structural analysis model...?)
Anyy links to prove the structural analysis model they talk about? and has it been indepdantly verified?
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 12 2009, 12:24 PM)
Why do you expect a building collapse to not have a period of freefall?
Either that is the heart of your arguement or "it must have been a conspiracy" is the the heart of your arguement.
I wouldn't expect 100 feet of freefalling building.
I haven't seen evidence to support (excuse the pun) how this freefall would occur - I'd like to...
As in my post about I show even thought the whole CONSPIRACY theory is based on people in charge of the security of the buildings colluding to plant explosives.... NIST in one sentence dismiss the issue of multiple explosives becuase they "were considered infeasible to carry out without detection."
Thousands upon thousand of experts in various fields call fowl, saying that internally placed explosives is the most reasonable explanation, yet the officials investigating the most probably cause out right dismiss this scenario because the perpetrators would have been detected before completing their plan.
What is that if it is not admition of a cover up?
Either that is the heart of your arguement or "it must have been a conspiracy" is the the heart of your arguement.
I wouldn't expect 100 feet of freefalling building.
I haven't seen evidence to support (excuse the pun) how this freefall would occur - I'd like to...
As in my post about I show even thought the whole CONSPIRACY theory is based on people in charge of the security of the buildings colluding to plant explosives.... NIST in one sentence dismiss the issue of multiple explosives becuase they "were considered infeasible to carry out without detection."
Thousands upon thousand of experts in various fields call fowl, saying that internally placed explosives is the most reasonable explanation, yet the officials investigating the most probably cause out right dismiss this scenario because the perpetrators would have been detected before completing their plan.
What is that if it is not admition of a cover up?
QUOTE (Fizical+Sep 12 2009, 12:26 PM)
It was in freefall for approx 100 feet (no links, this is just what I remeber from measurments of the video analysis)
For you hypothesis to ring true there it would need to be possible for 100 feet of the structure to fail in one go. Is there any evidence to support this possibilty? (i'm assuming that answer should be in their structural analysis model...?)
Anyy links to prove the structural analysis model they talk about? and has it been indepdantly verified?
You are joking, right?
Please tell me you are joking.
How would large parts of the structure not fail at one go?
Have you ever seen a spinning plate on top of a stick?
How could that possible fall off a little bit of the sticks length at a time.
It falls off all at once.
It's not like telescoping legs of a tripod. Where the support collapses into itself.
Give me an example where a support collapses a bit at a time.
I bet if you find what you think is an example it will be a series of supports failing one after another.
A support is supporting or it's not. And will go from one to the other quickly.
For you hypothesis to ring true there it would need to be possible for 100 feet of the structure to fail in one go. Is there any evidence to support this possibilty? (i'm assuming that answer should be in their structural analysis model...?)
Anyy links to prove the structural analysis model they talk about? and has it been indepdantly verified?
You are joking, right?
Please tell me you are joking.
How would large parts of the structure not fail at one go?
Have you ever seen a spinning plate on top of a stick?
How could that possible fall off a little bit of the sticks length at a time.
It falls off all at once.
It's not like telescoping legs of a tripod. Where the support collapses into itself.
Give me an example where a support collapses a bit at a time.
I bet if you find what you think is an example it will be a series of supports failing one after another.
A support is supporting or it's not. And will go from one to the other quickly.
QUOTE (Fizical+Sep 12 2009, 11:29 AM)
ALL SCENRIOS's were NOT addressed, particularly mutilpe explsive devices.
From the link you posted on NIST's final report:
"Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario explosive location. This involved preliminary cutting of Column 79 and the use of 4kg (9lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to carry out without detection."
The key failure in this report is that don't even investigate the possibility of multiple explovies because it's "unfeasable" i.e. They are dismissing it immediately based on the assumtion that a conspiracy is not possible.
That is not scientific, that is a cover up.
From the link you posted on NIST's final report:
"Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario explosive location. This involved preliminary cutting of Column 79 and the use of 4kg (9lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to carry out without detection."
The key failure in this report is that don't even investigate the possibility of multiple explovies because it's "unfeasable" i.e. They are dismissing it immediately based on the assumtion that a conspiracy is not possible.
That is not scientific, that is a cover up.
"Focused" doesn't imply that other scenarios were not examined. How would investigators determine that a blast scenario was infeasible if it were not first investigated? Considering there was no supporting evidence for explosive demolition, they used an example of a scenario that would have given an external signature of a blast event, and the reality was that no such signature was detected.
Fizical
Watching the replay of the coverage of 911 yesterday reinforces just how idiotic these conspiracy nuts really are. What part of flying 125 ton aircraft into buildings NOT designed to suffer such abuse do they not understand? That the buildings stood as long as they did is a tribute to their excellent engineering and construction. And ANY building that suffers damage and burns for over 7 hours without any attempts to fight the fires is likely to fall down.
A conspiracy is not scientific, it is pure lunacy.
Grumpy
QUOTE
The key failure in this report is that don't even investigate the possibility of multiple explovies because it's "unfeasable" i.e. They are dismissing it immediately based on the assumtion that a conspiracy is not possible.
That is not scientific, that is a cover up.
That is not scientific, that is a cover up.
Watching the replay of the coverage of 911 yesterday reinforces just how idiotic these conspiracy nuts really are. What part of flying 125 ton aircraft into buildings NOT designed to suffer such abuse do they not understand? That the buildings stood as long as they did is a tribute to their excellent engineering and construction. And ANY building that suffers damage and burns for over 7 hours without any attempts to fight the fires is likely to fall down.
A conspiracy is not scientific, it is pure lunacy.
Grumpy
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 12 2009, 12:35 PM)
How would large parts of the structure not fail at one go?
Have you ever seen a spinning plate on top of a stick?
How could that possible fall off a little bit of the sticks length at a time.
It falls off all at once.
It's not like telescoping legs of a tripod. Where the support collapses into itself.
Give me an example where a support collapses a bit at a time.
I bet if you find what you think is an example it will be a series of supports failing one after another.
A support is supporting or it's not. And will go from one to the other quickly.
I've never seen a plate fall down through the stick
Having just checked the NIST explanations of how the WTC7 collapsed I see their offical explanation for why it wasn't explsives: Shyam Sunder says:
"We would have seen sound levels of 12 - 130 decibels about a half a mile away. That would have been an incredibly large sound, and that sound was not picked up by any of the video's or witnesses we talked to"
There are plenty of eye witness reports talking about explosions... besides a building collapsing isnt' exactly quiet regardless of cause. This is a poor argument.
Have you ever seen a spinning plate on top of a stick?
How could that possible fall off a little bit of the sticks length at a time.
It falls off all at once.
It's not like telescoping legs of a tripod. Where the support collapses into itself.
Give me an example where a support collapses a bit at a time.
I bet if you find what you think is an example it will be a series of supports failing one after another.
A support is supporting or it's not. And will go from one to the other quickly.
I've never seen a plate fall down through the stick
Having just checked the NIST explanations of how the WTC7 collapsed I see their offical explanation for why it wasn't explsives: Shyam Sunder says:
"We would have seen sound levels of 12 - 130 decibels about a half a mile away. That would have been an incredibly large sound, and that sound was not picked up by any of the video's or witnesses we talked to"
There are plenty of eye witness reports talking about explosions... besides a building collapsing isnt' exactly quiet regardless of cause. This is a poor argument.
QUOTE (Capracus+Sep 12 2009, 01:03 PM)
"Focused" doesn't imply that other scenarios were not examined. How would investigators determine that a blast scenario was infeasible if it were not first investigated? Considering there was no supporting evidence for explosive demolition, they used an example of a scenario that would have given an external signature of a blast event, and the reality was that no such signature was detected.
Correct "focused" doesn't imply other scenarios were not examined....
"considered infeasible to carry out without detection" implies they have assumed explsives couldnt have been placed in the building because no-one detected them... Due to a lack of any other (scientific) reason for dismissing multiple blasts, this also implies no scientific analysis was carried out on this hypothysis.
Signatures of blast scenarios (controlled demolition):
* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
* The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
* Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event. (squibs)
* The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
* The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.
This is what you see in typical controlled demolitions. It does not guarantee that is how the building collapsed, it just proves it is a possible scenario worthy of serious investigation. The suggestions that it doesn't show characteristics of a controlled demolittion is utterly rediculous. You discredit yourself there.
Correct "focused" doesn't imply other scenarios were not examined....
"considered infeasible to carry out without detection" implies they have assumed explsives couldnt have been placed in the building because no-one detected them... Due to a lack of any other (scientific) reason for dismissing multiple blasts, this also implies no scientific analysis was carried out on this hypothysis.
Signatures of blast scenarios (controlled demolition):
* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
* The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
* Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event. (squibs)
* The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
* The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.
This is what you see in typical controlled demolitions. It does not guarantee that is how the building collapsed, it just proves it is a possible scenario worthy of serious investigation. The suggestions that it doesn't show characteristics of a controlled demolittion is utterly rediculous. You discredit yourself there.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 12 2009, 01:06 PM)
Fizical
Watching the replay of the coverage of 911 yesterday reinforces just how idiotic these conspiracy nuts really are. What part of flying 125 ton aircraft into buildings NOT designed to suffer such abuse do they not understand? That the buildings stood as long as they did is a tribute to their excellent engineering and construction. And ANY building that suffers damage and burns for over 7 hours without any attempts to fight the fires is likely to fall down.
A conspiracy is not scientific, it is pure lunacy.
Grumpy
the chief architect is on record stating he designed the buildings to withstand a 707 (the largest plane at the time) - but no, not a 747, as they didnt exsist then.
"A conspiracy is not scientific, it is pure lunacy."
Please ask yourself... Why am I saying a conspiracy is pure lunacy? Is it actually impossible for people in power to conspire against the people they are supposed to be working for or is it something I just don't want to believe? Dismissing a conspiracy based only on denial is not scientific.
Being scientific is about having an open mind to the posibilities based onthe laws of physics... not the laws of good behaviour.
cheer up grumpy
Watching the replay of the coverage of 911 yesterday reinforces just how idiotic these conspiracy nuts really are. What part of flying 125 ton aircraft into buildings NOT designed to suffer such abuse do they not understand? That the buildings stood as long as they did is a tribute to their excellent engineering and construction. And ANY building that suffers damage and burns for over 7 hours without any attempts to fight the fires is likely to fall down.
A conspiracy is not scientific, it is pure lunacy.
Grumpy
the chief architect is on record stating he designed the buildings to withstand a 707 (the largest plane at the time) - but no, not a 747, as they didnt exsist then.
"A conspiracy is not scientific, it is pure lunacy."
Please ask yourself... Why am I saying a conspiracy is pure lunacy? Is it actually impossible for people in power to conspire against the people they are supposed to be working for or is it something I just don't want to believe? Dismissing a conspiracy based only on denial is not scientific.
Being scientific is about having an open mind to the posibilities based onthe laws of physics... not the laws of good behaviour.
cheer up grumpy
QUOTE (Fizical+Sep 12 2009, 12:34 PM)
I wouldn't expect 100 feet of freefalling building.
No targeted building, no matter how many explosives are planted, could exhibit free fall behavior. As long as some intact segment of a structure exists, there will always be some degree of resistance to the force of gravity. When explosives are used to demolish a building, the goal isn't to remove all of the resistance, but just enough to cause the structure to fail with the aid of the expense-less force of gravity.
As for your insistence to multiple explosive sites, have you ever seen and heard videos of explosive demolitions? Unlike the environment of the WTC 7 collapse, the explosives used in those demolitions are clearly audible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwF_VPaBd28
As for your insistence to multiple explosive sites, have you ever seen and heard videos of explosive demolitions? Unlike the environment of the WTC 7 collapse, the explosives used in those demolitions are clearly audible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwF_VPaBd28
QUOTE (Capracus+Sep 12 2009, 01:51 PM)
No targeted building, no matter how many explosives are planted, could exhibit free fall behavior.
....
As for your insistence to multiple explosive sites, have you ever seen and heard videos of explosive demolitions? Unlike the environment of the WTC 7 collapse, the explosives used in those demolitions are clearly audible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwF_VPaBd28
Then all I can say is that it is strange that NIST admits freefall speed for 2.25 seconds. - quoted above somewhere...
quote: "the goal isn't to remove all of the resistance, but just enough to cause the structure to fail with the aid of the expense-less force of gravity" So you would admit that the 2 scenarios of fires and explosives would produce a t similar outcome? meaning at a bear minumum both scenarios deserve equal research from an investigation??
Yes - explosives are audiable at controlled demolitions. There are many documented eye witness statements of just such explosions.
....
As for your insistence to multiple explosive sites, have you ever seen and heard videos of explosive demolitions? Unlike the environment of the WTC 7 collapse, the explosives used in those demolitions are clearly audible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwF_VPaBd28
Then all I can say is that it is strange that NIST admits freefall speed for 2.25 seconds. - quoted above somewhere...
quote: "the goal isn't to remove all of the resistance, but just enough to cause the structure to fail with the aid of the expense-less force of gravity" So you would admit that the 2 scenarios of fires and explosives would produce a t similar outcome? meaning at a bear minumum both scenarios deserve equal research from an investigation??
Yes - explosives are audiable at controlled demolitions. There are many documented eye witness statements of just such explosions.
QUOTE (Fizical+Sep 12 2009, 01:08 PM)
I've never seen a plate fall down through the stick
Exactly but for some bizzare reason that is what you seem to think happened with the building. The almost all air structure.
Have you ever been in a building? It's mostly nothing but air. Maybe that is the part you don't get. There is lots of room for the small fraction that is not air to go when it gives way suddendly.
when the stick falls over it's not supporting the plate and the plate falls down with the stick out of the way. It's not the best analogy.
But you are starting with a conspiracy that doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons.
You are not starting with the physics. and not starting with a foundation in phsyics just generalities and assumptions that fit your initial assumption of a conspiracy.
Exactly but for some bizzare reason that is what you seem to think happened with the building. The almost all air structure.
Have you ever been in a building? It's mostly nothing but air. Maybe that is the part you don't get. There is lots of room for the small fraction that is not air to go when it gives way suddendly.
when the stick falls over it's not supporting the plate and the plate falls down with the stick out of the way. It's not the best analogy.
But you are starting with a conspiracy that doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons.
You are not starting with the physics. and not starting with a foundation in phsyics just generalities and assumptions that fit your initial assumption of a conspiracy.
QUOTE (Fizical+Sep 12 2009, 01:27 PM)
the chief architect is on record stating he designed the buildings to withstand a 707 (the largest plane at the time) - but no, not a 747, as they didnt exsist then.
"A conspiracy is not scientific, it is pure lunacy."
Please ask yourself... Why am I saying a conspiracy is pure lunacy? Is it actually impossible for people in power to conspire against the people they are supposed to be working for or is it something I just don't want to believe? Dismissing a conspiracy based only on denial is not scientific.
Being scientific is about having an open mind to the posibilities based onthe laws of physics... not the laws of good behaviour.
cheer up grumpy
They did withstand the 747s and the fires, it was the buckling of supports and gravity that it did not withstand.
And starting with a conclusion is not scientific either.
And sticking with it is not scientific either.
If the truthers are right, then why would they call a videographer who admits being ignorant, an executive?
"A conspiracy is not scientific, it is pure lunacy."
Please ask yourself... Why am I saying a conspiracy is pure lunacy? Is it actually impossible for people in power to conspire against the people they are supposed to be working for or is it something I just don't want to believe? Dismissing a conspiracy based only on denial is not scientific.
Being scientific is about having an open mind to the posibilities based onthe laws of physics... not the laws of good behaviour.
cheer up grumpy
They did withstand the 747s and the fires, it was the buckling of supports and gravity that it did not withstand.
And starting with a conclusion is not scientific either.
And sticking with it is not scientific either.
If the truthers are right, then why would they call a videographer who admits being ignorant, an executive?
QUOTE (Fizical+Sep 12 2009, 02:07 PM)
Then all I can say is that it is strange that NIST admits freefall speed for 2.25 seconds. - quoted above somewhere...
NIST makes no such claim, and if you had read Buttershug's earlier post you would have noticed this information.
So you would admit that the 2 scenarios of fires and explosives would produce a t similar outcome? meaning at a bear minumum both scenarios deserve equal research from an investigation??
QUOTE
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_f...ic_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factshe..._qa_082108.html
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factshe..._qa_082108.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_f...ic_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factshe..._qa_082108.html |
So you would admit that the 2 scenarios of fires and explosives would produce a t similar outcome? meaning at a bear minumum both scenarios deserve equal research from an investigation??
NIST simulated a blast scenario that would initiate a similar collapse, only no evidence existed in the debris, or any external signature was present during the collapse to support such a scenario in reality.
QUOTE
Yes - explosives are audible at controlled demolitions. There are many documented eye witness statements of just such explosions.
There were video and sound recordings of the WTC 7 collapse, why were none of these characteristic blast signatures captured by these more reliable witnesses to the event?
QUOTE (Capracus+Sep 12 2009, 02:51 PM)
NIST makes no such claim, and if you had read Buttershug's earlier post you would have noticed this information.
Oooooooooooooh YES THEY DO - please check their own website: (If YOU had read buttershugs earlier post... you would know they do admit freefall for 2.25s ;o)
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html
QUOTE FROM NIST:
* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
Note the stage 2 that says it was "free fall"? Please acknowledge.
NIST simulated a blast scenario that would initiate a similar collapse
I'll take that as a yes then...
I'll take that as a yes then...
only no evidence existed in the debris, or any external signature was present during the collapse
That's just a lie - I listed some external signatures that none of you have acknowledged or refuted. Evidence in the debris? Check for Thermite: 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html
There were video and sound recordings of the WTC 7 collapse, why were none of these characteristic blast signatures captured by these more reliable witnesses to the event?
I got nailed for not backup up with links... Please can I have a link to support your claim.
For a video of the the first tower's lobby exhibiting blast evidence
youtube.com/watch?v=WgREwTFiuVU
I don't have any emotion about it to be honest. Therefore.. let's ask you a specific question.
What ... exactly... do you think happened to the Towers?
[Moderator: I feel this is such an important question that I suspended the above poster for a whole week to free him from any other responsibilities other than describing in detail the whole actions and scope of the 9-11 events as described by his conspiracy theory.]
Oooooooooooooh YES THEY DO - please check their own website: (If YOU had read buttershugs earlier post... you would know they do admit freefall for 2.25s ;o)
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html
QUOTE FROM NIST:
* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
Note the stage 2 that says it was "free fall"? Please acknowledge.
QUOTE
NIST simulated a blast scenario that would initiate a similar collapse
I'll take that as a yes then...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
NIST simulated a blast scenario that would initiate a similar collapse |
I'll take that as a yes then...
only no evidence existed in the debris, or any external signature was present during the collapse
That's just a lie - I listed some external signatures that none of you have acknowledged or refuted. Evidence in the debris? Check for Thermite: 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html
QUOTE
There were video and sound recordings of the WTC 7 collapse, why were none of these characteristic blast signatures captured by these more reliable witnesses to the event?
I got nailed for not backup up with links... Please can I have a link to support your claim.
For a video of the the first tower's lobby exhibiting blast evidence
youtube.com/watch?v=WgREwTFiuVU
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 12 2009, 02:22 PM)
If the truthers are right, then why would they call a videographer who admits being ignorant, an executive?
Is the answer - Becuase jelly bounces???
a) What are you on about? - Actrually don't answer, as you are clearly miles away from any scientific point raised here.
"Truthers" whatever they may be... are no doubt not one collective mind that operates in hormony.
It's called investigating. Were you never given an assignment at school along the lines of 'Scientific research is best made using emotioanl response rather than evidence - discuss.'?
besides I'm sticking with it because the evidence available sugests it is a real possibility.
I stick with becuase I am able to remove my ego or emotions cloud my judgement (unlike grump when he claimed "A conspiracy is not scientific, it is pure lunacy.")
Is the answer - Becuase jelly bounces???
a) What are you on about? - Actrually don't answer, as you are clearly miles away from any scientific point raised here.
"Truthers" whatever they may be... are no doubt not one collective mind that operates in hormony.QUOTE
And starting with a conclusion is not scientific either.
And sticking with it is not scientific either.
And sticking with it is not scientific either.
It's called investigating. Were you never given an assignment at school along the lines of 'Scientific research is best made using emotioanl response rather than evidence - discuss.'?
besides I'm sticking with it because the evidence available sugests it is a real possibility.
I stick with becuase I am able to remove my ego or emotions cloud my judgement (unlike grump when he claimed "A conspiracy is not scientific, it is pure lunacy.")
QUOTE
I stick with becuase I am able to remove my ego or emotions cloud my judgement
I don't have any emotion about it to be honest. Therefore.. let's ask you a specific question.
What ... exactly... do you think happened to the Towers?
[Moderator: I feel this is such an important question that I suspended the above poster for a whole week to free him from any other responsibilities other than describing in detail the whole actions and scope of the 9-11 events as described by his conspiracy theory.]
QUOTE (Fizical+Sep 12 2009, 06:23 PM)
Is the answer - Becuase jelly bounces???
a) What are you on about? - Actrually don't answer, as you are clearly miles away from any scientific point raised here.
"Truthers" whatever they may be... are no doubt not one collective mind that operates in hormony.
It's called investigating. Were you never given an assignment at school along the lines of 'Scientific research is best made using emotioanl response rather than evidence - discuss.'?
besides I'm sticking with it because the evidence available sugests it is a real possibility.
I stick with becuase I am able to remove my ego or emotions cloud my judgement (unlike grump when he claimed "A conspiracy is not scientific, it is pure lunacy.")
Earlier in the thread was a post on how a NIST executive had come forward with video evidence. Turns out it was just a videographer not an executive. And he said he didn't know what his video showed.
Why do Truthers feel the need to distort like that?
But that is the quality of Truther's evidence.
You reject simple explanations looking only at conspiracy ones. That is not scientific.
Truthers will use the same evidence to first go one way then another.
And more evidence suggests that it happened the way it was said to have happened.
Are you going to start talking about exploding thermite?
a) What are you on about? - Actrually don't answer, as you are clearly miles away from any scientific point raised here.
"Truthers" whatever they may be... are no doubt not one collective mind that operates in hormony.It's called investigating. Were you never given an assignment at school along the lines of 'Scientific research is best made using emotioanl response rather than evidence - discuss.'?
besides I'm sticking with it because the evidence available sugests it is a real possibility.
I stick with becuase I am able to remove my ego or emotions cloud my judgement (unlike grump when he claimed "A conspiracy is not scientific, it is pure lunacy.")
Earlier in the thread was a post on how a NIST executive had come forward with video evidence. Turns out it was just a videographer not an executive. And he said he didn't know what his video showed.
Why do Truthers feel the need to distort like that?
But that is the quality of Truther's evidence.
You reject simple explanations looking only at conspiracy ones. That is not scientific.
Truthers will use the same evidence to first go one way then another.
And more evidence suggests that it happened the way it was said to have happened.
Are you going to start talking about exploding thermite?
Correction: the aircraft were 767s, much smaller than 747s.
Other than that, yawn.
Other than that, yawn.
Actually I saw a great show on the Truther movement yesterday on the Discovery channel.
They actually went and hired a firm to do a number of tests to show if the Truther claims had any merit. When they came back with their answers, the Truthers they had on the show immediately claimed that none of the tests were accurate enough.
However, when asked to bring up and prove their own hypothesis, they all clammed up and claimed that this is not their business to do.
What made it really interesting for me is that they had an historian on the show. Fascinating stuff. He made a rather interesting comparison between Truthers and fairy tales. Since it's a subject that I find of great interest (actually wrote a paper in my 3rd year on the subject) it got my attention.
Fairy tales are a much more serious subject than people think and it reveals a great deal about the people who wrote them. Many fairy tales were about the things that scare us and brought object lessons to life by making the events much larger than life.
Take Hansel and Gretel. One of the subplots of the tale is the warning not to trust strangers... in this case a witch. Nowadays, it is part of our culture not to trust the government no matter what.
That is not a bad moral lesson as it goes, since the government is often deceitful. However, what the Truthers have done is taken their distrust of the government to an epic level, with shadowy organizations, military cadres, and secret plots to take over the world.
Much more interesting than a government that is simply corrupt and inept.
Sadly, much less likely as well.
They actually went and hired a firm to do a number of tests to show if the Truther claims had any merit. When they came back with their answers, the Truthers they had on the show immediately claimed that none of the tests were accurate enough.
However, when asked to bring up and prove their own hypothesis, they all clammed up and claimed that this is not their business to do.
What made it really interesting for me is that they had an historian on the show. Fascinating stuff. He made a rather interesting comparison between Truthers and fairy tales. Since it's a subject that I find of great interest (actually wrote a paper in my 3rd year on the subject) it got my attention.
Fairy tales are a much more serious subject than people think and it reveals a great deal about the people who wrote them. Many fairy tales were about the things that scare us and brought object lessons to life by making the events much larger than life.
Take Hansel and Gretel. One of the subplots of the tale is the warning not to trust strangers... in this case a witch. Nowadays, it is part of our culture not to trust the government no matter what.
That is not a bad moral lesson as it goes, since the government is often deceitful. However, what the Truthers have done is taken their distrust of the government to an epic level, with shadowy organizations, military cadres, and secret plots to take over the world.
Much more interesting than a government that is simply corrupt and inept.
Sadly, much less likely as well.
QUOTE (Fizical+Sep 12 2009, 06:06 PM)
QUOTE FROM NIST:
* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
Note the stage 2 that says it was "free fall"? Please acknowledge.
I'll take that as a yes then...
That's just a lie - I listed some external signatures that none of you have acknowledged or refuted. Evidence in the debris? Check for Thermite: 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html
I got nailed for not backup up with links... Please can I have a link to support your claim.
For a video of the the first tower's lobby exhibiting blast evidence
youtube.com/watch?v=WgREwTFiuVU
Yes and my point still stands, why would you not expect a period of free fall within the collapse of mostly air? Especially when you consider that supports tend to go from supporting to not supporting very very quickly.
And I just knew you would start in with explosive thermite.
That is an indication of how well you understand the evidence. (or rather don't.)
Anything is possible if you are ignorant.
I don't know how many maps I drew trying to find one needing 5 colours.
I stopped when I learned better.
* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
Note the stage 2 that says it was "free fall"? Please acknowledge.
I'll take that as a yes then...
That's just a lie - I listed some external signatures that none of you have acknowledged or refuted. Evidence in the debris? Check for Thermite: 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html
I got nailed for not backup up with links... Please can I have a link to support your claim.
For a video of the the first tower's lobby exhibiting blast evidence
youtube.com/watch?v=WgREwTFiuVU
Yes and my point still stands, why would you not expect a period of free fall within the collapse of mostly air? Especially when you consider that supports tend to go from supporting to not supporting very very quickly.
And I just knew you would start in with explosive thermite.
That is an indication of how well you understand the evidence. (or rather don't.)
Anything is possible if you are ignorant.
I don't know how many maps I drew trying to find one needing 5 colours.
I stopped when I learned better.
QUOTE (Fizical+Sep 12 2009, 06:06 PM)
...
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
...
Note the stage 2 that says it was "free fall"? Please acknowledge.
Consider yourself acknowledged. I realize the source is nearly unimpeachable, but do you believe the building descended at freefall for a period and, if you do, why? Sorry, you're currently sitting in the corner, is my understanding, so are unable to respond. That's OK, it builds character and I'm very patient. Perhaps I can join you in the penalty box?
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
...
Note the stage 2 that says it was "free fall"? Please acknowledge.
Consider yourself acknowledged. I realize the source is nearly unimpeachable, but do you believe the building descended at freefall for a period and, if you do, why? Sorry, you're currently sitting in the corner, is my understanding, so are unable to respond. That's OK, it builds character and I'm very patient. Perhaps I can join you in the penalty box?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Yes and my point still stands, why would you not expect a period of free fall within the collapse of mostly air?
F= ma?
Reference this post by NEU-FONZE regarding gas expulsion in the towers' collapse, not exactly the same deal but the principle applies:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...40&#entry361618
But why only air? There was a bunch of stuff there, piling up.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/relation...7-15.html#p1168
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/a-buildi...undrum-t70.html
God, I love when other people write and I only have to link!
Then, of course, there's NIST. I'm sure you've seen these animations:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/release...wtc_videos.html
I don't think these depict freefall. I'll confess I haven't measured the videos to 'reverse-engineer' the roofline displacement, so there is still the possibility I can be proven wrong on my casual-glance assessment, a sort of Schroedinger's cat kind of thing. Feeling lucky?
So, there are measurements, and there is theory. A bit of mismatch, fertile ground for exploration. Little room for certainty, in my opinion, but I'm willing to listen to any arguments to the contrary.
F= ma?
Reference this post by NEU-FONZE regarding gas expulsion in the towers' collapse, not exactly the same deal but the principle applies:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...40&#entry361618
But why only air? There was a bunch of stuff there, piling up.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/relation...7-15.html#p1168
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/a-buildi...undrum-t70.html
God, I love when other people write and I only have to link!
Then, of course, there's NIST. I'm sure you've seen these animations:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/release...wtc_videos.html
I don't think these depict freefall. I'll confess I haven't measured the videos to 'reverse-engineer' the roofline displacement, so there is still the possibility I can be proven wrong on my casual-glance assessment, a sort of Schroedinger's cat kind of thing. Feeling lucky?
So, there are measurements, and there is theory. A bit of mismatch, fertile ground for exploration. Little room for certainty, in my opinion, but I'm willing to listen to any arguments to the contrary.
The official story says that there was a period free fall.
why would there not be?
The Truthers seem to think that any free fall means explosives.
No it doesn't.
And contray to what? I'm not sure what your position is. Other than maybe that something that doesn't mean anything didn't happen?
I only said mainly air to reinforce the point that having a period of free fall means nothing.
why would there not be?
The Truthers seem to think that any free fall means explosives.
No it doesn't.
And contray to what? I'm not sure what your position is. Other than maybe that something that doesn't mean anything didn't happen?
I only said mainly air to reinforce the point that having a period of free fall means nothing.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 13 2009, 01:44 AM)
The official story says that there was a period free fall.
Does it? Doesn't look like it in the animations. You mean measurements of the actual fall? I'm sure you know why NIST did not mention freefall in their draft, in fact denied the notion, then quickly reversed their position on the final release - in contradiction to their simulation results. Knowing that, do you think it was a prudent decision?
F = ma. Last time I put a question mark after it. Let me add dW=F.dx.
F = ma. Last time I put a question mark after it. Let me add dW=F.dx.
I'm not sure what your position is.
My position is questioning the certainty with which freefall is expected by you. As well, the belief that it actually did exist. Do you believe it because NIST says it, or you've confirmed it for yourself? I wonder if you were so certain before their final report... their interpolation shows a peak of 10.6 m/s^2, you know... [Moderator: Document URL and page number required!]
Oh, never mind, the Bible says it and that's good enough for me.
To each their own, but best to keep the accusations of ignorance restrained.
Oooooooooooooh YES THEY DO - please check their own website: (If YOU had read buttershugs earlier post... you would know they do admit freefall for 2.25s ;o)
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html
QUOTE FROM NIST:
* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
Note the stage 2 that says it was "free fall"? Please acknowledge.
Fizical,
Forgive me for overlooking the irrelevance of your point. The quoted section of the NIST Q&A was intended to counter the assertion by critics that the structure essentially collapsed at free fall speed. The relevant point of the section was that the collapse took 40% longer that the expected free fall time. As I pointed out to you earlier, as far as buildings are concerned, free fall is not a major component of explosive demolition. So when you are able to reply, could you please explain why the new battle cry has gone from falling completely at, to momentarily at, near free fall?
Here are some more demolition examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgF5VmLpzOc
What else is not surprising is the invention of a demolition scenario that explains the lack of evidence for explosive residue:
Does it? Doesn't look like it in the animations. You mean measurements of the actual fall? I'm sure you know why NIST did not mention freefall in their draft, in fact denied the notion, then quickly reversed their position on the final release - in contradiction to their simulation results. Knowing that, do you think it was a prudent decision?
QUOTE
why would there not be?
F = ma. Last time I put a question mark after it. Let me add dW=F.dx.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| why would there not be? |
F = ma. Last time I put a question mark after it. Let me add dW=F.dx.
I'm not sure what your position is.
My position is questioning the certainty with which freefall is expected by you. As well, the belief that it actually did exist. Do you believe it because NIST says it, or you've confirmed it for yourself? I wonder if you were so certain before their final report... their interpolation shows a peak of 10.6 m/s^2, you know... [Moderator: Document URL and page number required!]
Oh, never mind, the Bible says it and that's good enough for me.
QUOTE
...something that doesn't mean anything...
To each their own, but best to keep the accusations of ignorance restrained.
When vertical supports go they usually go suddendly.
I mean it's not like buildings are solid.
Why would you expect no period of freefall?
If I knocked a plant off my balcony, would you be suprised if it fell at free fall for a period of time?
I really wonder why you think there would be no period of freefall.
The collapse would not be homogenous. It doesn't happen like telescoping tripod legs closed. Or any other example of something that telescopes.
edit and yeah F=ma, so?
I would expect parts of something that is mostly nothing to have no resistance to falling at least part of the fall.
I mean it's not like buildings are solid.
Why would you expect no period of freefall?
If I knocked a plant off my balcony, would you be suprised if it fell at free fall for a period of time?
I really wonder why you think there would be no period of freefall.
The collapse would not be homogenous. It doesn't happen like telescoping tripod legs closed. Or any other example of something that telescopes.
edit and yeah F=ma, so?
I would expect parts of something that is mostly nothing to have no resistance to falling at least part of the fall.
QUOTE (Fizical+Sep 12 2009, 06:06 PM)
Oooooooooooooh YES THEY DO - please check their own website: (If YOU had read buttershugs earlier post... you would know they do admit freefall for 2.25s ;o)
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html
QUOTE FROM NIST:
* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
Note the stage 2 that says it was "free fall"? Please acknowledge.
Fizical,
Forgive me for overlooking the irrelevance of your point. The quoted section of the NIST Q&A was intended to counter the assertion by critics that the structure essentially collapsed at free fall speed. The relevant point of the section was that the collapse took 40% longer that the expected free fall time. As I pointed out to you earlier, as far as buildings are concerned, free fall is not a major component of explosive demolition. So when you are able to reply, could you please explain why the new battle cry has gone from falling completely at, to momentarily at, near free fall?
Here are some more demolition examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgF5VmLpzOc
QUOTE
I'll take that as a yes then...
That's just a lie - I listed some external signatures that none of you have acknowledged or refuted. Evidence in the debris? Check for Thermite: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/t...s/thermite.html
Since the elements of thermite, aluminum and iron oxide, are also common elements of most large commercial buildings, finding those materials present in the collapse debris would not be surprising. That's just a lie - I listed some external signatures that none of you have acknowledged or refuted. Evidence in the debris? Check for Thermite: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/t...s/thermite.html
What else is not surprising is the invention of a demolition scenario that explains the lack of evidence for explosive residue:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'll take that as a yes then... That's just a lie - I listed some external signatures that none of you have acknowledged or refuted. Evidence in the debris? Check for Thermite: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/t...s/thermite.html |
Since the elements of thermite, aluminum and iron oxide, are also common elements of most large commercial buildings, finding those materials present in the collapse debris would not be surprising.
What else is not surprising is the invention of a demolition scenario that explains the lack of evidence for explosive residue:Because these pyrotechnics are energy-dense, have very specific conditions of ignition and detonation, and leave residues composed of the same elements as building parts; they are well suited to the covert demolition of the Twin Towers.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermit...g_scenario.html
What else is not surprising is the invention of a demolition scenario that explains the lack of evidence for explosive residue:Because these pyrotechnics are energy-dense, have very specific conditions of ignition and detonation, and leave residues composed of the same elements as building parts; they are well suited to the covert demolition of the Twin Towers.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermit...g_scenario.html
QUOTE
I got nailed for not backup up with links... Please can I have a link to support your claim.
For a video of the the first tower's lobby exhibiting blast evidence
youtube.com/watch?v=WgREwTFiuVU
NIST claimed that they reviewed various recordings and found no evidence of blast signatures, and unlike you, I take them at their word. As for the Naudet video of WTC 1, the broken windows in the lobby were likely caused by jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts. What does a video of broken windows at WTC 1 have to do with blast signatures at WTC 7?For a video of the the first tower's lobby exhibiting blast evidence
youtube.com/watch?v=WgREwTFiuVU
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 13 2009, 05:36 AM)
When vertical supports go they usually go suddendly.
I mean it's not like buildings are solid.
Why would you expect no period of freefall?
If I knocked a plant off my balcony, would you be suprised if it fell at free fall for a period of time?
I really wonder why you think there would be no period of freefall.
The collapse would not be homogenous. It doesn't happen like telescoping tripod legs closed. Or any other example of something that telescopes.
edit and yeah F=ma, so?
I would expect parts of something that is mostly nothing to have no resistance to falling at least part of the fall.
I mean it's not like buildings are solid.
Why would you expect no period of freefall?
If I knocked a plant off my balcony, would you be suprised if it fell at free fall for a period of time?
I really wonder why you think there would be no period of freefall.
The collapse would not be homogenous. It doesn't happen like telescoping tripod legs closed. Or any other example of something that telescopes.
edit and yeah F=ma, so?
I would expect parts of something that is mostly nothing to have no resistance to falling at least part of the fall.
If you could magically remove all of the verticle supporting members of a building simuitanously, and negate the volume of trapped air within the structure, then you could possibly attain a condition of near free fall. Such conditions do not exist like this in reality, and they wouldn't be practicle in attempting an explosive demolition. Where you do witness near free fall in a demolition is in the case of bridges. These demolitions often require the explosive severence of bridge spans from their verticle supports, which allows the spans to freely drop.
Here are some examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgF5VmLpzOc
Here are some examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgF5VmLpzOc
QUOTE (Moderator+)
[Moderator: Document URL and page number required!]
The NIST report on WTC7, NIST NCSTAR 1-9, is available at:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm
Their velocity interpolation formula appears on page 603 of Volume 2.
If you're expecting a citation pointing to an NIST document to explicitly give the peak value, you'll be waiting a long time. I doubt they know or even care what the peak value of their interpolation is. You can differentiate the function yourself and solve for the extremum (as I did) or just look here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/it-s-off...e-fall-t91.html
I'd like to believe that a citation was required because you're curious and interested, but then you could ask instead of require. I hope it's not because you think such claims are BS, because then I'll have to ask you where your demand for sources is for the nonsense that buttershug has posted. Repeatedly.
This place has sure gone downhill.
Thank you, Capracus, for addressing buttershug's intuitive notions of how collapses behave. I can only add that the few times CDs have been instrumented for research purposes, or their video analysed by me or others, freefall is not something that's observed. A quote from Dr. G:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/did-wtc-...o-fast-t85.html
The NIST report on WTC7, NIST NCSTAR 1-9, is available at:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm
Their velocity interpolation formula appears on page 603 of Volume 2.
If you're expecting a citation pointing to an NIST document to explicitly give the peak value, you'll be waiting a long time. I doubt they know or even care what the peak value of their interpolation is. You can differentiate the function yourself and solve for the extremum (as I did) or just look here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/it-s-off...e-fall-t91.html
I'd like to believe that a citation was required because you're curious and interested, but then you could ask instead of require. I hope it's not because you think such claims are BS, because then I'll have to ask you where your demand for sources is for the nonsense that buttershug has posted. Repeatedly.
This place has sure gone downhill.
Thank you, Capracus, for addressing buttershug's intuitive notions of how collapses behave. I can only add that the few times CDs have been instrumented for research purposes, or their video analysed by me or others, freefall is not something that's observed. A quote from Dr. G:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/did-wtc-...o-fast-t85.html
QUOTE (Dr. G+)
In his second, (1996) paper, Yarimer used electronic and photographic timing devices to study a number of real CDs. One of great interest to the present discussion was the 1995 demolition of a 20-story high-rise known as Sandwell East Tower. This demolition showed - as was observed for some other CDs studied by Yarimer - a latency period of ~ 1.5 seconds before significant bulk motions were detected.
I have taken Yarimer’s data to look at the accelerations for the Sandwell East Tower CD. Some time-drop data for the first 5 seconds are: 0 s, 0 m; 1 s, 0 m; 2 s, 1.8 m; 3.0 s, 10 m; 4.0 s, 22.3 m; 5.0 s, 35.9 m. These data show the collapse was well below free fall. Indeed, Yarimer states in his discussion of this data: “Near time t = 0, the calculated accelerations are influenced by the observed latency, thus lifting the estimate of the upwards reaction force.” It appears that even Yarimer had t(0) problems!
Now...
I have taken Yarimer’s data to look at the accelerations for the Sandwell East Tower CD. Some time-drop data for the first 5 seconds are: 0 s, 0 m; 1 s, 0 m; 2 s, 1.8 m; 3.0 s, 10 m; 4.0 s, 22.3 m; 5.0 s, 35.9 m. These data show the collapse was well below free fall. Indeed, Yarimer states in his discussion of this data: “Near time t = 0, the calculated accelerations are influenced by the observed latency, thus lifting the estimate of the upwards reaction force.” It appears that even Yarimer had t(0) problems!
Now...
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I really wonder why you think there would be no period of freefall.
Maybe months of analysis has something to do with it. Did you check ANY of the references I supplied, or are they over your head? Perhaps now YOU could produce some sources for your belief, besides analogies of plants falling off of balconies.
Maybe months of analysis has something to do with it. Did you check ANY of the references I supplied, or are they over your head? Perhaps now YOU could produce some sources for your belief, besides analogies of plants falling off of balconies.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
edit and yeah F=ma, so?
Why are you posting in a physics forum?
Why are you posting in a physics forum?
QUOTE (Capracus+Sep 13 2009, 11:28 AM)
If you could magically remove all of the verticle supporting members of a building simuitanously, and negate the volume of trapped air within the structure, then you could possibly attain a condition of near free fall. Such conditions do not exist like this in reality, and they wouldn't be practicle in attempting an explosive demolition. Where you do witness near free fall in a demolition is in the case of bridges. These demolitions often require the explosive severence of bridge spans from their verticle supports, which allows the spans to freely drop.
Here are some examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgF5VmLpzOc
I didn't realize that buildings were burned out for several hours before demolition.
I don't think it's totally accurate to compare it to controlled demolitions unless of course you want to show differences.
The collapse of the building didn't happen "suddenly". It took several hours.
And why would the verticle supporting members have to simutaneously be magically removed?
The free fall didn't start at the start of the collapse of the building.
And exactly how much of the building was collapsed before the 5.4 seconds?
And are you guys saying that there was a governement conspiracy or there was not? You seem to be disagreeing with both sides.
Here are some examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgF5VmLpzOc
I didn't realize that buildings were burned out for several hours before demolition.
I don't think it's totally accurate to compare it to controlled demolitions unless of course you want to show differences.
The collapse of the building didn't happen "suddenly". It took several hours.
And why would the verticle supporting members have to simutaneously be magically removed?
The free fall didn't start at the start of the collapse of the building.
And exactly how much of the building was collapsed before the 5.4 seconds?
And are you guys saying that there was a governement conspiracy or there was not? You seem to be disagreeing with both sides.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 13 2009, 05:53 PM)
The collapse of the building didn't happen "suddenly". It took several hours.
What are you talking about? The building was rock-steady until failure progressed up the interior, a scant few seconds before exterior motion was observed and global collapse ensued. By your definition, the collapse in a CD takes weeks or months because it includes the preparation time in which contents and members are removed and pre-weakening is accomplished. I acknowledge the importance of the quasi-static evolution of the system towards its eventual end state, but we're talking dynamics; get with the program.
What freefall? The period of freefall that NIST denied until it appeared in the final draft, the period that does not appear in their simulation and is backed only by a time average of the most crude and inaccurate interpolator?
What freefall? The period of freefall that NIST denied until it appeared in the final draft, the period that does not appear in their simulation and is backed only by a time average of the most crude and inaccurate interpolator?
And are you guys saying that there was a governement conspiracy or there was not?
What does that have to do with the general physics of collapse? Why would you ask that question? Your attitude seems to be more representative of religious zealotry than scientific inquiry. I ask again, why are you posting on a physics forum?
Is there a problem with that?
Actually I was rather thinking that of you.
All I see is a bunch of people who have no experience in the subject matter repeating what other unqualified people have said based on nearly no evidence.
Let's see...
If the WTC was an example of a controlled demolition...
1. Why wait an hour while fire raged?
2. Would the explosives not have been set off nearly right away by the fire?
3. How did the explosives get into the building?
4. Why do nearly all the experts agree that it was not an explosion?
5. Why bother with explosives if you are going to hit the towers with planes?
Answer those first... assuming you can.
What are you talking about? The building was rock-steady until failure progressed up the interior, a scant few seconds before exterior motion was observed and global collapse ensued. By your definition, the collapse in a CD takes weeks or months because it includes the preparation time in which contents and members are removed and pre-weakening is accomplished. I acknowledge the importance of the quasi-static evolution of the system towards its eventual end state, but we're talking dynamics; get with the program.
QUOTE
The free fall didn't start at the start of the collapse of the building.
What freefall? The period of freefall that NIST denied until it appeared in the final draft, the period that does not appear in their simulation and is backed only by a time average of the most crude and inaccurate interpolator?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The free fall didn't start at the start of the collapse of the building. |
What freefall? The period of freefall that NIST denied until it appeared in the final draft, the period that does not appear in their simulation and is backed only by a time average of the most crude and inaccurate interpolator?
And are you guys saying that there was a governement conspiracy or there was not?
What does that have to do with the general physics of collapse? Why would you ask that question? Your attitude seems to be more representative of religious zealotry than scientific inquiry. I ask again, why are you posting on a physics forum?
QUOTE
You seem to be disagreeing with both sides.
Is there a problem with that?
QUOTE
Your attitude seems to be more representative of religious zealotry than scientific inquiry. I ask again, why are you posting on a physics forum?
Actually I was rather thinking that of you.
All I see is a bunch of people who have no experience in the subject matter repeating what other unqualified people have said based on nearly no evidence.
Let's see...
If the WTC was an example of a controlled demolition...
1. Why wait an hour while fire raged?
2. Would the explosives not have been set off nearly right away by the fire?
3. How did the explosives get into the building?
4. Why do nearly all the experts agree that it was not an explosion?
5. Why bother with explosives if you are going to hit the towers with planes?
Answer those first... assuming you can.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 13 2009, 07:21 PM)
Actually I was rather thinking that of you.
At least we have some common ground, in an antithetical sort of way, and I'm thankful it ends there.
Bolding mine; speak for yourself. Once again, our viewpoints are mirror-opposite. I see you as the one that's entirely unqualified to comment on this subject. Parroting NIST with poor understanding does not count.
Bolding mine; speak for yourself. Once again, our viewpoints are mirror-opposite. I see you as the one that's entirely unqualified to comment on this subject. Parroting NIST with poor understanding does not count.
If the WTC was an example of a controlled demolition...
...
<irrelevant nonsense snipped>
...
Answer those first... assuming you can.
I do not support the notion of any of the buildings of the World Trade Center being 'examples of controlled demolition' and I'd like to know where you got that idea. Could it be from your similar faith-based reasoning? Or is it simply knee-jerk reaction to anyone questioning authority in any way? You're on autopilot for sure.
Before I continue, RobDegraves, I will ask you if you've perused any of the links I've provided and, if so, do you have any comments?
Your answer does not refute my point. Whether I am qualified to judge the evidence or not (I am definitely not qualified of course) does not mean that you are.
You can avoid the question if you want.. but you won't divert attention from it by such cheap tactics.
Your answer does not refute my point. Whether I am qualified to judge the evidence or not (I am definitely not qualified of course) does not mean that you are.
You can avoid the question if you want.. but you won't divert attention from it by such cheap tactics.
I do not support the notion of any of the buildings of the World Trade Center being 'examples of controlled demolition'
Alright then.. what happened?
Let's hear it from you in one concise and coherent package shall we?
Or do you just like to play games without any serious merit?
Yes I have looked at your links and no.. I don't have any comment until you actually answer my question.
Enough evasion from you... get to the point.
At least we have some common ground, in an antithetical sort of way, and I'm thankful it ends there.
QUOTE
All I see is a bunch of people who have no experience in the subject matter repeating what other unqualified people have said based on nearly no evidence.
Bolding mine; speak for yourself. Once again, our viewpoints are mirror-opposite. I see you as the one that's entirely unqualified to comment on this subject. Parroting NIST with poor understanding does not count.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All I see is a bunch of people who have no experience in the subject matter repeating what other unqualified people have said based on nearly no evidence. |
Bolding mine; speak for yourself. Once again, our viewpoints are mirror-opposite. I see you as the one that's entirely unqualified to comment on this subject. Parroting NIST with poor understanding does not count.
If the WTC was an example of a controlled demolition...
...
<irrelevant nonsense snipped>
...
Answer those first... assuming you can.
I do not support the notion of any of the buildings of the World Trade Center being 'examples of controlled demolition' and I'd like to know where you got that idea. Could it be from your similar faith-based reasoning? Or is it simply knee-jerk reaction to anyone questioning authority in any way? You're on autopilot for sure.
Before I continue, RobDegraves, I will ask you if you've perused any of the links I've provided and, if so, do you have any comments?
WTC 7 was not rock steady. Early on the firemen put a transit on it and observed motion. That aided in the decision to not fight the fire and pull back. Way back.
QUOTE
QUOTE
All I see is a bunch of people who have no experience in the subject matter repeating what other unqualified people have said based on nearly no evidence.
Bolding mine; speak for yourself. Once again, our viewpoints are mirror-opposite. I see you as the one that's entirely unqualified to comment on this subject. Parroting NIST with poor understanding does not count.
All I see is a bunch of people who have no experience in the subject matter repeating what other unqualified people have said based on nearly no evidence.
Bolding mine; speak for yourself. Once again, our viewpoints are mirror-opposite. I see you as the one that's entirely unqualified to comment on this subject. Parroting NIST with poor understanding does not count.
Your answer does not refute my point. Whether I am qualified to judge the evidence or not (I am definitely not qualified of course) does not mean that you are.
You can avoid the question if you want.. but you won't divert attention from it by such cheap tactics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE All I see is a bunch of people who have no experience in the subject matter repeating what other unqualified people have said based on nearly no evidence. Bolding mine; speak for yourself. Once again, our viewpoints are mirror-opposite. I see you as the one that's entirely unqualified to comment on this subject. Parroting NIST with poor understanding does not count. |
Your answer does not refute my point. Whether I am qualified to judge the evidence or not (I am definitely not qualified of course) does not mean that you are.
You can avoid the question if you want.. but you won't divert attention from it by such cheap tactics.
I do not support the notion of any of the buildings of the World Trade Center being 'examples of controlled demolition'
Alright then.. what happened?
Let's hear it from you in one concise and coherent package shall we?
Or do you just like to play games without any serious merit?
QUOTE
I will ask you if you've perused any of the links I've provided and, if so, do you have any comments?
Yes I have looked at your links and no.. I don't have any comment until you actually answer my question.
Enough evasion from you... get to the point.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 13 2009, 08:18 PM)
WTC 7 was not rock steady. Early on the firemen put a transit on it and observed motion. That aided in the decision to not fight the fire and pull back. Way back.
Very good, Dr. Benson. Now perhaps you can point me to the location in the NIST report where they do anything more than mention the fact, as you just did. A long time ago, shagster posted a picture of a firefighter with a transit pointed at WTC7. Do these transit measurements appear anywhere in NIST's work? Where is the early creep displacement in their models? Point it out to me, I want to see it. I have no problem with Hayden's account, that's not my beef here.
Based on NIST's work and my own, I've seen no evidence of either a bulge or a lean. I've resolved motion down to centimeters over seconds and, while there's no reason to believe a few centimeters of pre-existing lean can be resolved by anything other than a transit, there is no accelerating decay in elevation as seen with WTC1 prior to initiation. Until someone can show the transit measurements (which might well be available, according to a (JREF) self-described NYPD firefighter who claimed to be at GZ that day, AND could see the bulge), this is conjecture. While it may exist, there is no hard evidence whatsoever of significant motion prior to internal catastrophic failure, not even creep. It may be surmised from the witness accounts.
Besides, your comment strikes obliquely in this particular argument, Dr. Benson. We're talking about dynamics, as I indicated. Are you going to try to claim now the descent of WTC7 took seven hours? If so, I expect you to set your t0 on WTC1 back a good hour or so, and see how much that helps better describe collapse progression in your analysis. Please try to keep up.
Very good, Dr. Benson. Now perhaps you can point me to the location in the NIST report where they do anything more than mention the fact, as you just did. A long time ago, shagster posted a picture of a firefighter with a transit pointed at WTC7. Do these transit measurements appear anywhere in NIST's work? Where is the early creep displacement in their models? Point it out to me, I want to see it. I have no problem with Hayden's account, that's not my beef here.
Based on NIST's work and my own, I've seen no evidence of either a bulge or a lean. I've resolved motion down to centimeters over seconds and, while there's no reason to believe a few centimeters of pre-existing lean can be resolved by anything other than a transit, there is no accelerating decay in elevation as seen with WTC1 prior to initiation. Until someone can show the transit measurements (which might well be available, according to a (JREF) self-described NYPD firefighter who claimed to be at GZ that day, AND could see the bulge), this is conjecture. While it may exist, there is no hard evidence whatsoever of significant motion prior to internal catastrophic failure, not even creep. It may be surmised from the witness accounts.
Besides, your comment strikes obliquely in this particular argument, Dr. Benson. We're talking about dynamics, as I indicated. Are you going to try to claim now the descent of WTC7 took seven hours? If so, I expect you to set your t0 on WTC1 back a good hour or so, and see how much that helps better describe collapse progression in your analysis. Please try to keep up.
why is buttershug allowed to make the repeated mistake of thinking any building should be expected to have periods of freefall because it is "mostly air".
the volume inside of the radius of a sword being swung around is "mostly air", but that doesn't mean the sword simply passes through anything solid within that body if "mostly air".
a cube van is "mostly air", but if it drives into a wall it will do the more damage than a thight little sports car that is far more "dense".
this is SUPPOSED to be a physics forum, and yet, here is someone who is left unfettered to repeat constant violations of newton's law of conservation of energy, while anyone questioning the official story gets banned.
this place was bad before, but now it's a complete joke.
the thing is, buttershug, is "the collapse" is not a single event. you cannot start the clock at the first sign of movement of the penthouse, and then say that all the extrerior collumns and core columns were "beginning to collapse", too, because they simply were not, as is clearly seen in the video record.
the penthouse fell (at near freefall, too, inside the building, as shown by achimspock (search youtube for this user)), and then the core fell, and then exterior fell. kinda like an "implosion" where the inside is cleared so the exterior can fall into it.
anyway, the MAIN point, is that the exterior columns offered no resistance from THEMSELVES, or from the rubble pile inside the building.
for the first 2.3 seconds of the collapse of the JUST THE EXTERIOR, there was zero resistance from below. that means, that the bottom of the exterior columns were knocked out simultaneously. if you look at the floor plan, you will see that the exterior columns were VERY irregular, due to the bizarre shape of the building, and yet, they all failed at exactly the same moment, as evidenced by the highly symmetrical descent of the building.
that does not add up.
it is simply impossible for these exterior columns to break themselves apart with gravity at the rate of acceleration due to gravity. there has to be another energy input, or newton's law is violated.
the volume inside of the radius of a sword being swung around is "mostly air", but that doesn't mean the sword simply passes through anything solid within that body if "mostly air".
a cube van is "mostly air", but if it drives into a wall it will do the more damage than a thight little sports car that is far more "dense".
this is SUPPOSED to be a physics forum, and yet, here is someone who is left unfettered to repeat constant violations of newton's law of conservation of energy, while anyone questioning the official story gets banned.
this place was bad before, but now it's a complete joke.
the thing is, buttershug, is "the collapse" is not a single event. you cannot start the clock at the first sign of movement of the penthouse, and then say that all the extrerior collumns and core columns were "beginning to collapse", too, because they simply were not, as is clearly seen in the video record.
the penthouse fell (at near freefall, too, inside the building, as shown by achimspock (search youtube for this user)), and then the core fell, and then exterior fell. kinda like an "implosion" where the inside is cleared so the exterior can fall into it.
anyway, the MAIN point, is that the exterior columns offered no resistance from THEMSELVES, or from the rubble pile inside the building.
for the first 2.3 seconds of the collapse of the JUST THE EXTERIOR, there was zero resistance from below. that means, that the bottom of the exterior columns were knocked out simultaneously. if you look at the floor plan, you will see that the exterior columns were VERY irregular, due to the bizarre shape of the building, and yet, they all failed at exactly the same moment, as evidenced by the highly symmetrical descent of the building.
that does not add up.
it is simply impossible for these exterior columns to break themselves apart with gravity at the rate of acceleration due to gravity. there has to be another energy input, or newton's law is violated.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 13 2009, 08:20 PM)
Whether I am qualified to judge the evidence or not (I am definitely not qualified of course) does not mean that you are.
I surmise that you've judged me unqualified in your sweeping generalization; if I'm mistaken, please correct me.
I am avoiding nothing, I've addressed your comments head-on and provided links to substantive material to back my position. I have asked you a number of pointed questions, which you have not addressed - at all.
I am avoiding nothing, I've addressed your comments head-on and provided links to substantive material to back my position. I have asked you a number of pointed questions, which you have not addressed - at all.
Alright then.. what happened?
How the hell should I know? Airplane impact, dislodged insulation, unfought fires? It works for me. Why are you confusing the dispute over a few numbers with The Grand Scheme of Everything? That's just weird.
Start here, it has a table of contents so don't whine about how you can't be bothered wading through a bunch of stuff. Sorry, this only covers the topic which was under discussion, not your delusional fantasies about what I think.
Start here, it has a table of contents so don't whine about how you can't be bothered wading through a bunch of stuff. Sorry, this only covers the topic which was under discussion, not your delusional fantasies about what I think.
Or do you just like to play games without any serious merit?
You are a complete and utter waste of time.
WHAT QUESTION? Those comical non-sequitors from your prior post? Or the ones in this most recent post? Sorry, I have a few questions in the queue ahead of yours, perhaps you can attend to them now.
Oh, and by the way: those threads I linked to have view counts. Laziness and lying are therefore painfully obvious.
WHAT QUESTION? Those comical non-sequitors from your prior post? Or the ones in this most recent post? Sorry, I have a few questions in the queue ahead of yours, perhaps you can attend to them now.
Oh, and by the way: those threads I linked to have view counts. Laziness and lying are therefore painfully obvious.
Enough evasion from you... get to the point.
Your demands are of no consequence to me. Nevertheless, I'd still oblige you if I had any clue what you're talking about. What point do YOU imagine I need to make?
I'm telling you there's no reason to expect freefall in a building collapse of any kind, and no evidence for it anywhere. This stands in direct contradiction to your unsupported assertions. What could be more straightforward than that? HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I ALREADY SAID THIS???
Surely you can tell the difference between a question and a statement, generalized or not.
I will ask again.
Are you in fact qualified to evaluate the WTC collapse?
Are you an engineer?
A physicist?
A plumber?
Which is it?
Surely you can tell the difference between a question and a statement, generalized or not.
I will ask again.
Are you in fact qualified to evaluate the WTC collapse?
Are you an engineer?
A physicist?
A plumber?
Which is it?
Why are you confusing the dispute over a few numbers with The Grand Scheme of Everything?
I am not. You have to admit though that the field you are discussing is replete with alternate explanations. I was simply trying to find out if you are advancing one or just quibbling with the NIST numbers.
If it's just a quibble on the NIST numbers... and your conclusion is the same... I am curious as to why it matters to you.
I don't know what you think... that is what I am trying to find out.
Nice ad hominem by the way.
I don't know what you think... that is what I am trying to find out.
Nice ad hominem by the way.
Sorry, I have a few questions in the queue ahead of yours, perhaps you can attend to them now.
That is a textbook evasion.
I have been to the 9/11 site you link to.... a few times now, whether you believe me or not.
However, the technical details are somewhat beyond me as I am not an engineer.
Are you?
I have been to the 9/11 site you link to.... a few times now, whether you believe me or not.
However, the technical details are somewhat beyond me as I am not an engineer.
Are you?
I'm telling you there's no reason to expect freefall in a building collapse of any kind, and no evidence for it anywhere.
I surmise that you've judged me unqualified in your sweeping generalization; if I'm mistaken, please correct me.
QUOTE
You can avoid the question if you want.. but you won't divert attention from it by such cheap tactics.
I am avoiding nothing, I've addressed your comments head-on and provided links to substantive material to back my position. I have asked you a number of pointed questions, which you have not addressed - at all.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You can avoid the question if you want.. but you won't divert attention from it by such cheap tactics. |
I am avoiding nothing, I've addressed your comments head-on and provided links to substantive material to back my position. I have asked you a number of pointed questions, which you have not addressed - at all.
Alright then.. what happened?
How the hell should I know? Airplane impact, dislodged insulation, unfought fires? It works for me. Why are you confusing the dispute over a few numbers with The Grand Scheme of Everything? That's just weird.
QUOTE
Let's hear it from you in one concise and coherent package shall we?
Start here, it has a table of contents so don't whine about how you can't be bothered wading through a bunch of stuff. Sorry, this only covers the topic which was under discussion, not your delusional fantasies about what I think.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let's hear it from you in one concise and coherent package shall we? |
Start here, it has a table of contents so don't whine about how you can't be bothered wading through a bunch of stuff. Sorry, this only covers the topic which was under discussion, not your delusional fantasies about what I think.
Or do you just like to play games without any serious merit?
You are a complete and utter waste of time.
QUOTE
Yes I have looked at your links and no.. I don't have any comment until you actually answer my question.
WHAT QUESTION? Those comical non-sequitors from your prior post? Or the ones in this most recent post? Sorry, I have a few questions in the queue ahead of yours, perhaps you can attend to them now.
Oh, and by the way: those threads I linked to have view counts. Laziness and lying are therefore painfully obvious.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes I have looked at your links and no.. I don't have any comment until you actually answer my question. |
WHAT QUESTION? Those comical non-sequitors from your prior post? Or the ones in this most recent post? Sorry, I have a few questions in the queue ahead of yours, perhaps you can attend to them now.
Oh, and by the way: those threads I linked to have view counts. Laziness and lying are therefore painfully obvious.
Enough evasion from you... get to the point.
Your demands are of no consequence to me. Nevertheless, I'd still oblige you if I had any clue what you're talking about. What point do YOU imagine I need to make?
I'm telling you there's no reason to expect freefall in a building collapse of any kind, and no evidence for it anywhere. This stands in direct contradiction to your unsupported assertions. What could be more straightforward than that? HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I ALREADY SAID THIS???
QUOTE
I surmise that you've judged me unqualified in your sweeping generalization; if I'm mistaken, please correct me.
Surely you can tell the difference between a question and a statement, generalized or not.
I will ask again.
Are you in fact qualified to evaluate the WTC collapse?
Are you an engineer?
A physicist?
A plumber?
Which is it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I surmise that you've judged me unqualified in your sweeping generalization; if I'm mistaken, please correct me. |
Surely you can tell the difference between a question and a statement, generalized or not.
I will ask again.
Are you in fact qualified to evaluate the WTC collapse?
Are you an engineer?
A physicist?
A plumber?
Which is it?
Why are you confusing the dispute over a few numbers with The Grand Scheme of Everything?
I am not. You have to admit though that the field you are discussing is replete with alternate explanations. I was simply trying to find out if you are advancing one or just quibbling with the NIST numbers.
If it's just a quibble on the NIST numbers... and your conclusion is the same... I am curious as to why it matters to you.
QUOTE
Sorry, this only covers the topic which was under discussion, not your delusional fantasies about what I think.
I don't know what you think... that is what I am trying to find out.
Nice ad hominem by the way.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sorry, this only covers the topic which was under discussion, not your delusional fantasies about what I think. |
I don't know what you think... that is what I am trying to find out.
Nice ad hominem by the way.
Sorry, I have a few questions in the queue ahead of yours, perhaps you can attend to them now.
That is a textbook evasion.
QUOTE
Oh, and by the way: those threads I linked to have view counts. Laziness and lying are therefore painfully obvious.
I have been to the 9/11 site you link to.... a few times now, whether you believe me or not.
However, the technical details are somewhat beyond me as I am not an engineer.
Are you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh, and by the way: those threads I linked to have view counts. Laziness and lying are therefore painfully obvious. |
I have been to the 9/11 site you link to.... a few times now, whether you believe me or not.
However, the technical details are somewhat beyond me as I am not an engineer.
Are you?
I'm telling you there's no reason to expect freefall in a building collapse of any kind, and no evidence for it anywhere.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Are you an engineer?
Yes, a software engineer. Not an ME or a structural engineer, though I have worked in (non-software) engineering capacities in a variety of mainstream industries.
I have a bachelor of science in physics.
I have a bachelor of science in physics.
A plumber?
No, I wish.
To cover the objection that a software engineer is unqualified to make the comments I have, I offer the following:
- the merit of a body of research stands independent of the credentials of the researcher
- an ME or CE is not qualified to analyze video, by virtue of their profession
- a software developer, particularly given my specialties, IS a priori qualified to do motion analysis
- on matters of mechanics I am schooled, and I have absorbed a lot through hands-on work, even osmosis (try reading THIS thread and it may work for you)
- I have a substantial body of research which has stood unassaulted; take your best shot
No argument.
No argument.
I was simply trying to find out if you are advancing one or just quibbling with the NIST numbers.
By truther-baiting me? Lame. No, I'm not advancing an alternative argument, I am quibbling with NIST numbers but mostly I'm quibbling with the ridiculous notion that freefall is expected. Until you showed up, that's all I was doing - now there's a serious sidetrack - and that should have been obvious.
Do you know now?
Do you know now?
Nice ad hominem by the way.
Actually, I was trying a JREF tactic on for size since that's what things are devolving to here, but I didn't like the way it fit. I take it back. I just imagined you were truther baiting me.
BS, your questions have been answered repeatedly. It's time for you to answer why you asked me what my demolition theories were... what that had to do with anything.
BS, your questions have been answered repeatedly. It's time for you to answer why you asked me what my demolition theories were... what that had to do with anything.
I have been to the 9/11 site you link to.... a few times now, whether you believe me or not.
That may be so. Have you checked out the links I provided - which is distinct from what you say?
Then it's time for you to gracefully bow out of a discussion which you are merely derailing. I wrote some of the stuff you don't understand, and see next:
Then it's time for you to gracefully bow out of a discussion which you are merely derailing. I wrote some of the stuff you don't understand, and see next:
I will ask again.
Are you in fact qualified to evaluate the WTC collapse?
Certain aspects, such as the one that was being discussed, eminently so. Certain other aspects, not at all.
Yes, a software engineer. Not an ME or a structural engineer, though I have worked in (non-software) engineering capacities in a variety of mainstream industries.
QUOTE
A physicist?
I have a bachelor of science in physics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A physicist? |
I have a bachelor of science in physics.
A plumber?
No, I wish.
To cover the objection that a software engineer is unqualified to make the comments I have, I offer the following:
- the merit of a body of research stands independent of the credentials of the researcher
- an ME or CE is not qualified to analyze video, by virtue of their profession
- a software developer, particularly given my specialties, IS a priori qualified to do motion analysis
- on matters of mechanics I am schooled, and I have absorbed a lot through hands-on work, even osmosis (try reading THIS thread and it may work for you)
- I have a substantial body of research which has stood unassaulted; take your best shot
QUOTE
You have to admit though that the field you are discussing is replete with alternate explanations.
No argument.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You have to admit though that the field you are discussing is replete with alternate explanations. |
No argument.
I was simply trying to find out if you are advancing one or just quibbling with the NIST numbers.
By truther-baiting me? Lame. No, I'm not advancing an alternative argument, I am quibbling with NIST numbers but mostly I'm quibbling with the ridiculous notion that freefall is expected. Until you showed up, that's all I was doing - now there's a serious sidetrack - and that should have been obvious.
QUOTE
I don't know what you think... that is what I am trying to find out.
Do you know now?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't know what you think... that is what I am trying to find out. |
Do you know now?
Nice ad hominem by the way.
Actually, I was trying a JREF tactic on for size since that's what things are devolving to here, but I didn't like the way it fit. I take it back. I just imagined you were truther baiting me.
QUOTE
That is a textbook evasion.
BS, your questions have been answered repeatedly. It's time for you to answer why you asked me what my demolition theories were... what that had to do with anything.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is a textbook evasion. |
BS, your questions have been answered repeatedly. It's time for you to answer why you asked me what my demolition theories were... what that had to do with anything.
I have been to the 9/11 site you link to.... a few times now, whether you believe me or not.
That may be so. Have you checked out the links I provided - which is distinct from what you say?
QUOTE
However, the technical details are somewhat beyond me as I am not an engineer.
Then it's time for you to gracefully bow out of a discussion which you are merely derailing. I wrote some of the stuff you don't understand, and see next:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| However, the technical details are somewhat beyond me as I am not an engineer. |
Then it's time for you to gracefully bow out of a discussion which you are merely derailing. I wrote some of the stuff you don't understand, and see next:
I will ask again.
Are you in fact qualified to evaluate the WTC collapse?
Certain aspects, such as the one that was being discussed, eminently so. Certain other aspects, not at all.
QUOTE (our exchange+)
QUOTE (me+)
I'm telling you there's no reason to expect freefall in a building collapse of any kind, and no evidence for it anywhere.
QUOTE (you+)
Hmmm... what does it say here in your expert opinion then?
9/11 debunking
Here's the first paragraph of the page you linked to:
9/11 debunking
Here's the first paragraph of the page you linked to:
QUOTE (9/11 Debunking+)
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
You know what I think it says? Pretty much the same thing I said, to which you responded and provided me this link. Do you even understand you're jumping on someone who doesn't believe anything went down at freefall, and jumping to the defense of someone who expects freefall in a collapse? This is surreal, this is full grade tilt. You need to slow down and look at what's been posted.
Do you know how foolish it is to cite work by Greening to shoot down someone who just cited Greening several times in the posts before yours? You're in good company, though, it isn't the first time. Even more foolish, though, is when the subject is WTC7. You see that graph that comes from Greening's paper? I replicated it with a physics-based simulation.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY???
It seems possible that I could be suspended/banned for arguing here in favor of the scientific method. Should that be the case, you know where to find me.
You know what I think it says? Pretty much the same thing I said, to which you responded and provided me this link. Do you even understand you're jumping on someone who doesn't believe anything went down at freefall, and jumping to the defense of someone who expects freefall in a collapse? This is surreal, this is full grade tilt. You need to slow down and look at what's been posted.
Do you know how foolish it is to cite work by Greening to shoot down someone who just cited Greening several times in the posts before yours? You're in good company, though, it isn't the first time. Even more foolish, though, is when the subject is WTC7. You see that graph that comes from Greening's paper? I replicated it with a physics-based simulation.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY???
It seems possible that I could be suspended/banned for arguing here in favor of the scientific method. Should that be the case, you know where to find me.
OneWhiteEye --- I have not read the NIST report on WTC 7 and do not intend to do so. I fail to understand why they bothered: the structure burned steadily for many more hours than the fireproofing rating allowed for; the steel finally failed. Good enough for me.
It is possible than the initial bulging cam to an end once inelastic deformation absorbed enough KE, dunno.
As for the reputed freefall, given the design and what I take to be the sequence of the collapse, that would be possible for the north wall of WTC 7. Roughly, all the rest of the building ripped away from the north wall and the bottom section (unobserved) fell over as well, so the top part went straight down with no support. (Many variations on this theme are possible, but none of it seems of great interest to me.)
It is possible than the initial bulging cam to an end once inelastic deformation absorbed enough KE, dunno.
As for the reputed freefall, given the design and what I take to be the sequence of the collapse, that would be possible for the north wall of WTC 7. Roughly, all the rest of the building ripped away from the north wall and the bottom section (unobserved) fell over as well, so the top part went straight down with no support. (Many variations on this theme are possible, but none of it seems of great interest to me.)
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.