kahlmyishmael
11th April 2007 - 04:07 PM
QUOTE
Holy Jumpin Jehosiphat Batman!
Let us try this again. Our well oiled finely tuned federal government, in its most insidious thought ever, brings down the Trade Towers in front of several million people. For this to happen at a minimum, several thousand people have to be involved, including the "uber rich" so that they can get in on the war booty.
Well, the "hundreds/thousands of people" motif was the same rationale used in the USS Liberty attack.
There is a $500 free reward for you to point ou the portion of the wheelhouse that is obscured by the USS Liberty's mast.
Rosie O'Donnell first started out by asking on The View if governments have ever engaged in "false flag" operations against their own citizens.
Since you raised the topic of thousands of people, MaskedMarauder....
1) Would you care to encourage CTers and OCTers from PhysOrg to fashion a statement regarding the doctored photo above(presented to NEU-FONZE)... I can arrange for a participant in 3 yahoo!groups("wethepeople united, 911-Nexus, & 9-11 Ohio)who is in contact with Alex Jones to have Rosie O'Donnell present that doctored photo to Elizabeth Hasselbeck and the American Public on The View?
2) 911research claims those blueprints of the WTC should be publicly accessible. Is that true?
The as a group from the PhysOrg Forum(both Cters and OCTers)...would you like to join in fashioning a statemnt to those 3 yahoo!groups to have Alex Jones to suggest to Rosie to take a TV Camera down to the Port Authority to get those publicly accessible prints in front of a live national TV audience and OCTer, Elizabeth Hasselbeck?

"
Figure 3-3 From NIST's Final Report drastically misrepresents the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through the 83rd floors. "
MaskedMarauder.... does the NIST report drastically misrepresent the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through 83rd floors?
If NIST is telling the truth...then you should have no problem encouraging Rosie to get the blueprints to expose this 911research lie.
Care to join in and fashioning a joint PhysOrg Forum statement encouraging those yahoo!groups to have Alex Jones contact Rosie O'Donnell, MaskedMarauder?
We're still waiting for Palpatane and Grumpy's answer
MaskedMarauder, do innocent people/governments need to doctor evidence?
Would you like to be one of the ones, along with your fellow PhysOrg Forum OCTers to have OCTer Elizabeth Hasselbeck confrontwed with this on national TV?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Holy Jumpin Jehosiphat Batman!
Let us try this again. Our well oiled finely tuned federal government, in its most insidious thought ever, brings down the Trade Towers in front of several million people. For this to happen at a minimum, several thousand people have to be involved, including the "uber rich" so that they can get in on the war booty. |
Well, the "hundreds/thousands of people" motif was the same rationale used in the USS Liberty attack.
There is a $500 free reward for you to point ou the portion of the wheelhouse that is obscured by the USS Liberty's mast.
Rosie O'Donnell first started out by asking on The View if governments have ever engaged in "false flag" operations against their own citizens.
Since you raised the topic of thousands of people, MaskedMarauder....
1) Would you care to encourage CTers and OCTers from PhysOrg to fashion a statement regarding the doctored photo above(presented to NEU-FONZE)... I can arrange for a participant in 3 yahoo!groups("wethepeople united, 911-Nexus, & 9-11 Ohio)who is in contact with Alex Jones to have Rosie O'Donnell present that doctored photo to Elizabeth Hasselbeck and the American Public on The View?
2) 911research claims those blueprints of the WTC should be publicly accessible. Is that true?
The as a group from the PhysOrg Forum(both Cters and OCTers)...would you like to join in fashioning a statemnt to those 3 yahoo!groups to have Alex Jones to suggest to Rosie to take a TV Camera down to the Port Authority to get those publicly accessible prints in front of a live national TV audience and OCTer, Elizabeth Hasselbeck?

"
Figure 3-3 From NIST's Final Report drastically misrepresents the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through the 83rd floors. "
MaskedMarauder.... does the NIST report drastically misrepresent the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through 83rd floors?
If NIST is telling the truth...then you should have no problem encouraging Rosie to get the blueprints to expose this 911research lie.
Care to join in and fashioning a joint PhysOrg Forum statement encouraging those yahoo!groups to have Alex Jones contact Rosie O'Donnell, MaskedMarauder?
We're still waiting for Palpatane and Grumpy's answer
MaskedMarauder, do innocent people/governments need to doctor evidence?
Would you like to be one of the ones, along with your fellow PhysOrg Forum OCTers to have OCTer Elizabeth Hasselbeck confrontwed with this on national TV?
Now, fast foward a few years. Everyone in the US is looking to hang ol president Bush for his incredible lack of foresight in that an invading force cannot hold the realestate it took for very long. (shades of germany and world war 2) He has lost all credibility, and is swinging in the wind. The incompetence is beyond measure.
HOWEVER...
This well oiled, finely tuned machine can't seem to manufacture ONE weapon of mass destruction to save their own sorry ***, but they can keep over a thousand or more people quiet about bringing down the Towers to start this whole mess...
Control of the News Media as stated by CIA Director, William Colby... Again, they've kept the USS Liberty murders quiet
QUOTE
Now, for them to bring down the Towers, I have heard how they rigged the whole place with what, Det (detonation) cord in the form of computer cabling (CAT5) or that they used a thermonuclear device that emits NO radiation. or that they had cutter charges (thermite) planted all through the buildings, but they can't find any proof of those cutter charges, or the teams that would be required to plant them. and there is not ONE pissed off government employee that would love to see Bushie boy swinging from a tree outside the White House...
Well, let's get NEU-FONZE to explain the "great mystery"(Greening's own words ) of the 15 micron iron microspheres in the WTC dust... or join with Grumpy and saying that the flowing molten metal was aluminum with impurities THAT LOoKED exactly like molten iron
NEU-FONZE???? MaskedMarauder would never make an "appeal to logic" without first dealing with the "concrete evidence"...Care to join in on the Rosie O'Donnell challenge that NIST did not drastically misrepresent the width of the core columns from the 78th to the 83rd floors.
Don't worry, NEU-FONZE... MM and Grumpy and Arthur would never encourage you to trash your reputation... Join in with those 3 proudly!!!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Now, for them to bring down the Towers, I have heard how they rigged the whole place with what, Det (detonation) cord in the form of computer cabling (CAT5) or that they used a thermonuclear device that emits NO radiation. or that they had cutter charges (thermite) planted all through the buildings, but they can't find any proof of those cutter charges, or the teams that would be required to plant them. and there is not ONE pissed off government employee that would love to see Bushie boy swinging from a tree outside the White House... |
Well, let's get NEU-FONZE to explain the "great mystery"(Greening's own words ) of the 15 micron iron microspheres in the WTC dust... or join with Grumpy and saying that the flowing molten metal was aluminum with impurities THAT LOoKED exactly like molten iron
NEU-FONZE???? MaskedMarauder would never make an "appeal to logic" without first dealing with the "concrete evidence"...Care to join in on the Rosie O'Donnell challenge that NIST did not drastically misrepresent the width of the core columns from the 78th to the 83rd floors.
Don't worry, NEU-FONZE... MM and Grumpy and Arthur would never encourage you to trash your reputation... Join in with those 3 proudly!!!!
Sorry boys, but the amount of people that would HAVE to be involved and the number of people who would LOVE to see Bush and Cheney swinging just does not compute. If there was one shred of evidence that even looked like it could be proven, the new congress would slap that boy so hard his great great great great grandma would feel it.
MM
Well, like the USS Liberty...both Democrats, republicans, The News Media(CIA Director Colby's motif) and the Entertainment Media have not even questioned why the blueprints are being refused to be released(contrary to law)
kahlmyishmael
11th April 2007 - 04:18 PM
Grumpy,
Is this a correct reproduction of the portion of the 911 Commission Report?
QUOTE
For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004
Grumpy... Would you care to have Dr Greening
and his reputation join you, Arthur and MaskedMarauder in saying that "aluminum with impurities" looks just like "flowing molten iron"?
Grumpy,
George Bush himself said he saw the first plane hit... "that's one terrible pilot".
1) He didn't say to himself "that's one terrible pilot" when he was in the school...
2) HE DIDN'T SAY TO HIMSELF, "THAT'S ONE TERRIBLE PILOT" after Andrew Card whispered in his ear
3) He must have said to himself, "that's one terrible pilot" watching a TV "that was obviously on" while in his limousine en route to the school.
...but it must have been a closed-circuit TV then...which means how did they know in advance that the WTC towers were going to be attacked ENOUGH to set up closed-circuit TV Cameras pointed towards the WTC?
Also... if the USS Liberty attack was a wartime accident.... hyperlink me to where you have discussed the GOI's doctoring of photographic evidence.
Chainsaw,
11th April 2007 - 04:22 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 11 2007, 03:26 PM)
I'd assume ANYTHING is possibly explosive at 350c.
Chainsaw, you need to protect the ONLY set of EYES, EARS and SKIN you will ever own.
Take care.
Arthur
Ever hear of gun cotton, Edison was right he was Innocent, he was not playing with gun cotton when the room at the telegraph office exploded.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5964940.html Well not he can file a claim for wrongful firing, at least he has a case for it.
kahlmyishmael
11th April 2007 - 04:27 PM
David Benson,
Let's fashion a JOINT PHYORG FORUM statement to annihilate this 911 research lie that .......
" NIST's Final Report drastically misrepresents the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through the 83rd floors."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/d...ist_fig_3_3.pnghttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.htmlFigure 3-3 From NIST's Final Report drastically misrepresents the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through the 83rd floors.
This is surely an outrageous lie told by 911research...and when Rosie O'Donnell reads our joint PhysOrg statement she can march right down to the Port Authority with a TV Camera on Natioanl TV to demand those publicly-accessible blueprints and annihilate that 911research lie.
I'd like you to write the statement to the 3 yahoo!groups, David...
Then we can also send it to debunking911.com and 911myths.com and hey!!! ...while we're at it...we'll mail it off to dunkindonuts.org... I'm sure those chaps would be interested in having some unusual snacktime reading
adoucette
11th April 2007 - 04:41 PM
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Apr 11 2007, 11:27 AM)
" NIST's Final Report drastically misrepresents the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through the 83rd floors."
Nope.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G Appendix B - Column Schedule
Contains the exact dimensions of both the interior and exterior columns at or near the impact areas of both towers.
PS You can't link to images hosted by 911.research.
PPS Discussing the 911 Commission reports paraphrasing of the FEMA or NIST report on a SCIENCE FORUM is SILLY. Stick to the actual SCIENTIFIC reports, preferably the NIST report, not the POLITICIAN'S attempts to understand them.
Arthur
kahlmyishmael
11th April 2007 - 04:51 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 11 2007, 04:41 PM)
Nope.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G Appendix B - Column Schedule
Contains the exact dimensions of both the interior and exterior columns at or near the impact areas of both towers.
PS You can't link to images hosted by 911.research.
PPS Discussing the 911 Commission reports paraphrasing of the FEMA or NIST report on a SCIENCE FORUM is SILLY. Stick to the actual SCIENTIFIC reports, preferably the NIST report, not the POLITICIAN'S attempts to understand them.
Arthur
Then you should have absolutely NO PROBLEM in stating that the diagram does not drastically misrepresent the dimensions from the(Fig 3.3) 78th to 83rd floor.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Arthur has annihilated the 911 research lie.
Let's fashion a statement to Rosie, Alex Jones, 911research and 911myths.com and debunking911.com.
David Benson, ChainSaw, Grumpy, Palpatane, MaskedMarauder, NEU-FONZE.... I'm ashamed of you all in not backing Adoucette(Arthur's) contention about that diagram.
Speak up and join in by saying, "I, Frank Greening, proudly associate my reputation with Arthur and Grumpy!!!!"
Dr. Frank!!! Calling Dr. Frank.....
Dr. Frank should have absolutely NO PROBLEM in stating that the diagram does not drastically misrepresent the dimensions from the(Fig 3.3) 78th to 83rd floor.
I mean...you guys can back him...he would have said, "No" instead of a folksy little "Nope" if he was being deceitful....
Dr Frank Greening... Arthur can assure you 100% that it is OK to put your professional reputation behind his last posting... If the NIST diagram had been deceptive...he clearly would have stated so.
kahlmyishmael
11th April 2007 - 05:18 PM
David Benson and Dr. Frank Greening(NEU-FONZE),
While we're waiting for Godot and forever waiting for you to participate in the "Rosie! Go pick up those blueprints!" challenge
Where is the 911research being "intellectually dishonest in stating,
QUOTE
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html#commissionCross-BracingConstruction photographs show that the core columns were connected
to each other at each floor by large square girders and I-beams about two feet deep.
Say it isn't so, David and that we can fashion in a statement for Rosie just what floors did have cross-bracing...not "each floor"
QUOTE (->
Say it isn't so, David and that we can fashion in a statement for Rosie just what floors did have cross-bracing...not "each floor"
The debris photograph below shows what appears to be one of the smaller core columns
surrounded by perpendicular I-beams approximately three feet deep. In addition, the tops of core structures were
further connected by the sloping beams of the hat truss structures.
Come on, David... Let's get you to get Dr. Frank Greening to gladly put his reputation on the line with aluminum impurities making the same glow as flowing "molten iron"
...and while we're at it...join in with Dr. Greening in saying what was in that debris pile.
Don't worry, Rosie!!! Dr. Frank Greening is on the wayyyyyyyyyyy!
Those steel members in WTC that APPEARED TO BE "partially evaporated" would AT LEAST have been liquified at 2700 degrees from burning jet fuel and Gordon Ross's "intelligent fruit crumble" mixed in.
Dr. Frank(NEU-FONZE).... could you please give me your "intelligent fruit crumble" recipe and cooking instructions?
Dr Frank Greening...could you hyperlink me to where you discussed Gordon Ross's reply to your work in the journalof911studies?
kahlmyishmael
11th April 2007 - 05:33 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 11 2007, 04:41 PM)
Nope.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G Appendix B - Column Schedule
Contains the exact dimensions of both the interior and exterior columns at or near the impact areas of both towers.
Dr. Frank Greening(NEU-FONZE)?
David B Benson?
Chainsaw?
Palpatane?
Does
the diagram provided by NIST drastically misrepresent the width of the columns from the 78th to 83rd floor IN OPPOSITION to
what is contained in another section/report issued by that same NIST?
An honest guy like Arthur surely would have told us if it had, correct?
Arthur surely would have said, "Yes! NIST was being deceitful in that diagram but the real dimensions are at.....", correct?
Then for crying out loud!
Start backing Arthur's "intellectual honesty" by publicly putting Dr Frank Greening's professional reputation behind Arthur's assertions".
A less temperate individual would be getting pretty "cheesed off "that you OCTers are not backing each other's "intellectual honesty"
Masked Marauder
11th April 2007 - 05:38 PM
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Apr 11 2007, 04:07 PM)
Well, the "hundreds/thousands of people" motif was the same rationale used in the USS Liberty attack.
There is a $500 free reward for you to point ou the portion of the wheelhouse that is obscured by the USS Liberty's mast.
Rosie O'Donnell first started out by asking on The View if governments have ever engaged in "false flag" operations against their own citizens.
Since you raised the topic of thousands of people, MaskedMarauder....
1) Would you care to encourage CTers and OCTers from PhysOrg to fashion a statement regarding the doctored photo above(presented to NEU-FONZE)... I can arrange for a participant in 3 yahoo!groups("wethepeople united, 911-Nexus, & 9-11 Ohio)who is in contact with Alex Jones to have Rosie O'Donnell present that doctored photo to Elizabeth Hasselbeck and the American Public on The View?
2) 911research claims those blueprints of the WTC should be publicly accessible. Is that true?
The as a group from the PhysOrg Forum(both Cters and OCTers)...would you like to join in fashioning a statemnt to those 3 yahoo!groups to have Alex Jones to suggest to Rosie to take a TV Camera down to the Port Authority to get those publicly accessible prints in front of a live national TV audience and OCTer, Elizabeth Hasselbeck?

"
Figure 3-3 From NIST's Final Report drastically misrepresents the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through the 83rd floors. "
MaskedMarauder.... does the NIST report drastically misrepresent the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through 83rd floors?
If NIST is telling the truth...then you should have no problem encouraging Rosie to get the blueprints to expose this 911research lie.
Care to join in and fashioning a joint PhysOrg Forum statement encouraging those yahoo!groups to have Alex Jones contact Rosie O'Donnell, MaskedMarauder?
We're still waiting for Palpatane and Grumpy's answer
MaskedMarauder, do innocent people/governments need to doctor evidence?
Would you like to be one of the ones, along with your fellow PhysOrg Forum OCTers to have OCTer Elizabeth Hasselbeck confrontwed with this on national TV?
Control of the News Media as stated by CIA Director, William Colby... Again, they've kept the USS Liberty murders quiet
Well, let's get NEU-FONZE to explain the "great mystery"(Greening's own words ) of the 15 micron iron microspheres in the WTC dust... or join with Grumpy and saying that the flowing molten metal was aluminum with impurities THAT LOoKED exactly like molten iron
NEU-FONZE???? MaskedMarauder would never make an "appeal to logic" without first dealing with the "concrete evidence"...Care to join in on the Rosie O'Donnell challenge that NIST did not drastically misrepresent the width of the core columns from the 78th to the 83rd floors.
Don't worry, NEU-FONZE... MM and Grumpy and Arthur would never encourage you to trash your reputation... Join in with those 3 proudly!!!!
Well, like the USS Liberty...both Democrats, republicans, The News Media(CIA Director Colby's motif) and the Entertainment Media have not even questioned why the blueprints are being refused to be released(contrary to law)
USS Liberty? what are you talking about? Israel shot up a US navy ship. and lets go out on a limb. IT WAS an attack for some wild reason.... a couple hundred troops on a Navy ship that had no idea of what was going on, and the only people that would have to be involved would be what 10-15 people max?
Dude, it would take a cast of thousands to pull down the Towers. and who gives a rats bu** about the blueprints? What great evidence are you going to draw from those?
and wouldnt Rosie be part of the conspiracy? Part of the disinformation teams that were put out by the secret arm of the government?
and I couldn't see the photos you uploaded... so do those again.
You guys are stretching things so thin it is beyond logic, it is more humorous than anything else. Kind of like the face on Mars where everyone started drawing maps to pyramids based on the alignment of the face and eyes that everyone could CLEARLY see. Then when they did a fly by to get a tight view on it, it showed ZIP. just a hill. however THAT was a government conspiracy to cover up the martians that have been there for eons, waiting... watching.... drooling....
Keep your eyes open, never know who might be watching....
MM
Capracus
11th April 2007 - 05:54 PM
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Apr 11 2007, 04:22 PM)
Ever hear of gun cotton, Edison was right he was Innocent, he was not playing with gun cotton when the room at the telegraph office exploded.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5964940.html Well not he can file a claim for wrongful firing, at least he has a case for it.
Chainsaw, I think it's time to update your wardrobe.
adoucette
11th April 2007 - 06:31 PM
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Apr 11 2007, 11:51 AM)
Then you should have absolutely NO PROBLEM in stating that the diagram does not drastically misrepresent the dimensions from the(Fig 3.3) 78th to 83rd floor.
Well since NIST doesn't state that the columns ARE drawn to scale then any PRESUMPTION that they are, is YOUR OWN.
Further, since anyone reading the NIST report knows that NIST has explained (and documented with precise measurements) how the size (and TYPE) of the columns changes (get smaller) as the columns go up, one would not expect that there would be a SINGLE scale that columns spanning 6 floors could be drawn to.
Further since NIST documents that the columns on that floor are as small as 12 inches and as large as 36 inches, but the columns are drawn ALL THE SAME SIZE its a clear indication that the columns are used in the diagram as a REFERENCE to location and NOT to actual size.
Well except for people who LACK common sense.
Arthur
Grumpy
11th April 2007 - 06:32 PM
Callmeishmael
What are you raving about???
QUOTE
This is surely an outrageous lie told by 911research
Well, DUH!!! Almost every word(excluding maybe the a, an and the)on 911research is a lie.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is surely an outrageous lie told by 911research |
Well, DUH!!! Almost every word(excluding maybe the a, an and the)on 911research is a lie.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Arthur has annihilated the 911 research lie.
Let's fashion a statement to Rosie, Alex Jones, 911research and 911myths.com and debunking911.com.
David Benson, ChainSaw, Grumpy, Palpatane, MaskedMarauder, NEU-FONZE.... I'm ashamed of you all in not backing Adoucette(Arthur's) contention about that diagram.
What aurthur has said, I have said. 911research is nothing but lies.
QUOTE
Is this a correct reproduction of the portion of the 911 Commission Report?
Yes it is, but the commision does NOT say the core columns do not exist, as you(and 911research) contend. You are twisting the words to mean something they do not mean(a common tactic by "troothers").
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is this a correct reproduction of the portion of the 911 Commission Report? |
Yes it is, but the commision does NOT say the core columns do not exist, as you(and 911research) contend. You are twisting the words to mean something they do not mean(a common tactic by "troothers").
Well, the "hundreds/thousands of people" motif was the same rationale used in the USS Liberty attack.
Actually, no. The Isrealis asked the US if it had ships within 100 knots of the Isreali coastline and were told no. The Liberty(which had been told to stay at least 100 knots off the coast) was actually 12.5 knots off the coast. The fog of war(then 4 days old) led to the Isrealis misidentifying the Liberty as an Egyptian ship, which they attacked from the air. The Americans then fired on the Isreali patrol boats, who then torpedoed the ship, causing the most casualties and damage.
So called "friendly fire" incidents are common in war time and the US has had it's share. There were many failures and snafus associated with the Liberty attack and many will never accept the findings of the Naval Board of Inquiry, but Isreal had nothing to gain by a deliberate attack on Americans and much to lose so the accident of war conclusion makes a lot of sense.
The Liberty incident of 1967 has nothing to do with the Muslim Fundamentalist's barbaric attack on the Twin Towers in 2001.
Grumpy
FactCheck
11th April 2007 - 09:38 PM
I just heard Greening debate Fetzer on Fetzer's radio show. One topic came up which I thought needed more debate.
The suggestion came up that scientists are easily swayed by their corporate masters to produce results in line with what is best for the corporation. He gives his own example where he was told they all had to be "on the same page." The suggestion here is the NIST could be doing the same thing for their government masters.
There are many examples I can think of where scientists whored themselves for one reason or another. Money or politics are two major reasons. We all know the cigarette companies had scientists who just about murdered millions by suggesting smoke doesn't cause cancer. Scientists can be just as immoral as anyone else. Global warming also comes to mind. Not one peer reviewed paper suggest man isn't effecting the speed in which we are warming the planet. Or that the speed isn't going to cause the a ripple effect in the ecosystem. Yet a few scientists for the oil industry sing "Don't worry, be happy".
But there is a CLEAR distinction between the NIST and those corporate whores. The difference is all the support from the other civil/structural engineers the NIST enjoys. Why would MIT say the buildings could collapse to the ground if they were scared of losing government money? If they were scared of the government why wouldn't they just pass on the issue? Why would they go out of their way to help murderers? Why Bazant? He's a well respected professor who has passed many peer reviewed papers. Why stick his neck on the chopping block if he doesn't have too? He didn't have someone saying "We have to be on the same page" because he created his own page.
The point I make is not that they can be wrong about something in their papers. My point is why would they lie to the point of covering up a mass murder?
I think this is a very important point. You can't conflate the NIST scientists with other corporate scientists due to the proactive nature of support from many other scientists. This goes well beyond them just saying the NIST is right.
But Greening himself proves not every scientist in the world will be moved by money or politics. That is unless there is only one moral scientist like Greening.
I also don't see why Greening seemed upset that the NIST didn't follow the collapse to the ground. He made it sound like they were just lazy. MIT said they did easy calculations which showed the buildings were doomed once the top block fell. Greening himself wrote a paper on the subject. This was on top of Bazant's paper. Did they really need to create another or they are somehow abdicating their responsibilities? It seems to me it would only be taken out of context by conspiracy theorists anyway. "Greening said <X>, Bazant said <Y>, NIST said <Z>, CONSPIRACY!!!
It's my experience that adding complexity to already confused people only adds confusion.
kahlmyishmael
11th April 2007 - 10:41 PM
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Apr 11 2007, 05:38 PM)
USS Liberty? what are you talking about? Israel shot up a US navy ship. and lets go out on a limb. IT WAS an attack for some wild reason.... a couple hundred troops on a Navy ship that had no idea of what was going on, and the only people that would have to be involved would be what 10-15 people max?
Dude, it would take a cast of thousands to pull down the Towers. and who gives a rats bu** about the blueprints? What great evidence are you going to draw from those?
and wouldnt Rosie be part of the conspiracy? Part of the disinformation teams that were put out by the secret arm of the government?
and I couldn't see the photos you uploaded... so do those again.
You guys are stretching things so thin it is beyond logic, it is more humorous than anything else. Kind of like the face on Mars where everyone started drawing maps to pyramids based on the alignment of the face and eyes that everyone could CLEARLY see. Then when they did a fly by to get a tight view on it, it showed ZIP. just a hill. however THAT was a government conspiracy to cover up the martians that have been there for eons, waiting... watching.... drooling....
Keep your eyes open, never know who might be watching....
MM
CIA Director stated Israel knew they were attacking Americans!
The Government of Israel has doctored "gun camera" photos and IDF Ground Controller-to-pilot transcripts.
I showed you ONE OF the two doctored "gun camera photos"
ussliberty.com
usslibertyinquiry.com
hundreds of people would have had to have been involved according to one Israeli official
Do innocent people/governments need to doctor evidence,MM?
But now we turn to the Figure 3-3 Diagram.....
Does it drastically misrepresent the dimension of the columns from the 78th to 83rd floors?
Yes! Yes!!
Splendid!
Then Dr. Frank Greening(NEU-FONZE) should have absolutely NO PROBLEM proudly proclaiming that he stands by Arthur's assertions
Tell him so now, MM!
Rejoice! Rejoice!
kahlmyishmael
11th April 2007 - 10:51 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 11 2007, 06:31 PM)
Well since NIST doesn't state that the columns ARE drawn to scale then any PRESUMPTION that they are, is YOUR OWN.
Further, since anyone reading the NIST report knows that NIST has explained (and documented with precise measurements) how the size (and TYPE) of the columns changes (get smaller) as the columns go up, one would not expect that there would be a SINGLE scale that columns spanning 6 floors could be drawn to.
Further since NIST documents that the columns on that floor are as small as 12 inches and as large as 36 inches, but the columns are drawn ALL THE SAME SIZE its a clear indication that the columns are used in the diagram as a REFERENCE to location and NOT to actual size.
Well except for people who LACK common sense.
Arthur
Then Dr. Frank Greening should have absolutely NO PROBLEM backing your "intellectual honesty" with his professional reputation.
By the way, ....
...does the diagram 3-3 drastically misrepresent the column dimensions from floors 78 to 83?
"Yes" or "No"?
You see, Dr. Frank Greening.... Arthur is going to explain what else is not to scale in the diagram and confirm whether or not the column dimensions were drastically misrepresented?
Strange why they included the graphic at all...
So Arthur.... let's fashion a statement for Dr. Frank Greening to present AND CONCOMITANTLY back with his professional reputation on the "drastic misrepresentation"
Tell the readership proudly, Arthur.... "DR Frank Greening is posessed of the same moral fiber as I, Arthur(Adoucette), am nad he should be proud to put his professional reputation on the line with my assertions!!!
Rejoice! Rejoice!
FactCheck
11th April 2007 - 10:56 PM
Faulty Fireproofing Is Reviewed as Factor in Trade Center Collapse
By JAMES GLANZ with MICHAEL MOSS
Excerpts:
"Large areas of fireproofing are missing from the core columns in some of the photographs, and the architect who took them, Roger G. Morse, a consultant in Troy, N.Y., said his work had shown that the fireproofing did not stick properly. But Mr. Reiss said the problems were caused by the swaying of the buildings in the wind and the impact of elevator cables against the beams. "It was an ongoing maintenance headache," he said. Although measures were repeatedly taken to prevent the problem, he said, "every March and April when you had these windstorms and the building rocked back and forth, you would still knock some of the fireproofing down."
In an interview, Mr. Morse said the problems were far more widespread than that, probably because the fireproofing had been applied improperly to rusty steel. Mr. Morse, who at the time of his inspections was a consultant to the manufacturer of the fireproofing, said his examinations had never reached above the 78th floor in either tower, but that the nature and dimensions of the problem convinced him the failings of the fireproofing would be found on virtually all parts of the buildings. Investigators think the planes struck around the 90th to 94th floors of the north tower and the 78th to 84th floors of the south tower.
Mr. Morse said his inspections on several floors also found problems with the fireproofing of the lightweight, weblike trusses that held up the floors. He said his inspections, which began in 1986 and continued intermittently until June 2000, showed stretches of the tubelike structural steel supporting the trusses without any fireproofing, and other areas of extremely thin fireproofing.
Port Authority officials dismissed those allegations, saying that they doubted the photographs were representative of the entire building and that fireproofing on the trusses was regularly replaced and upgraded whenever there was a major renovation or a change of tenants."
http://www.mzaconsulting.com/Faulty%20Fireproofing_WTC.pdf
adoucette
11th April 2007 - 11:00 PM
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Apr 11 2007, 05:51 PM)
...does the diagram 3-3 drastically misrepresent the column dimensions from floors 78 to 83?
"Yes" or "No"? Except its NOT a yes or no question.
A ) NIST doesn't represent that it is a scale drawing.
B ) It is a COMPOSITE drawing of 6 floors, and since the columns aren't the same size (or type) on each of the floors, the idea of a scale drawing is SILLY.
C ) It is CLEARLY NOT a blueprint, so any EXPECTATION that it is to scale is yours alone.
D ) its PURPOSE was to show WHERE the damage was to the core and floors over a 6 floor area.
E ) NIST is obviously NOT misrepresenting the columns in the towers as they have a schedule in the NIST report that gives the EXACT dimensions of the columns you are referring to.
F ) We can go ON AND ON AND ON AND ON about this, but it IS rather pointless.
Arthur
kahlmyishmael
11th April 2007 - 11:04 PM
QUOTE
Callmeishmael
What are you raving about???
Why attempt to hide the doctoring of evidence by claiming someone is "raving/ranting"?
Since I'm raving then Dr. Frank Greening should have absolutely no problem backing the "intellectual honesty" displayed by you, Arthur and Masked Marauder with his professional reputation, correct?
Then let's tell him so
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Callmeishmael
What are you raving about??? |
Why attempt to hide the doctoring of evidence by claiming someone is "raving/ranting"?
Since I'm raving then Dr. Frank Greening should have absolutely no problem backing the "intellectual honesty" displayed by you, Arthur and Masked Marauder with his professional reputation, correct?
Then let's tell him so
Well, DUH!!! Almost every word(excluding maybe the a, an and the)on 911research is a lie.
So... "Yes" or "No"
So did the 911 commission report say the center was a hollow steel shaft and cite FEMA?
If not, "what was their exact quote"?
QUOTE
What aurthur has said, I have said. 911research is nothing but lies.
Well, they've said the diagram in Figure 3-3 drastically misrepresents the column dimensions from Floor 78 to Floor 83....
Tell Dr. Frank Greening he should PROUDLY DENOUNCE such a statement by 911research because of the "intellectual honesty" displayed by you and Arthur on this matter.
He should have absolutely no problem backing your statements with the full force of his "professional reputation"
Tell him that!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
What aurthur has said, I have said. 911research is nothing but lies. |
Well, they've said the diagram in Figure 3-3 drastically misrepresents the column dimensions from Floor 78 to Floor 83....
Tell Dr. Frank Greening he should PROUDLY DENOUNCE such a statement by 911research because of the "intellectual honesty" displayed by you and Arthur on this matter.
He should have absolutely no problem backing your statements with the full force of his "professional reputation"
Tell him that!
Yes it is, but the commision does NOT say the core columns do not exist, as you(and 911research) contend. You are twisting the words to mean something they do not mean(a common tactic by "troothers").
Then let's fashion a statement for Dr. Frank Greening to back with his professional reputation... first of all, let's see where they used the phrase "core colums" in that passage.
QUOTE
Actually, no. The Isrealis asked the US if it had ships within 100 knots of the Isreali coastline and were told no. The Liberty(which had been told to stay at least 100 knots off the coast) was actually 12.5 knots off the coast. The fog of war(then 4 days old) led to the Isrealis misidentifying the Liberty as an Egyptian ship, which they attacked from the air. The Americans then fired on the Isreali patrol boats, who then torpedoed the ship, causing the most casualties and damage.
So called "friendly fire" incidents are common in war time and the US has had it's share. There were many failures and snafus associated with the Liberty attack and many will never accept the findings of the Naval Board of Inquiry, but Isreal had nothing to gain by a deliberate attack on Americans and much to lose so the accident of war conclusion makes a lot of sense.
The Liberty incident of 1967 has nothing to do with the Muslim Fundamentalist's barbaric attack on the Twin Towers in 2001.
Grumpy
The CIA Director siad it was murder...
Israel doctored TWO Gun Camera photos and the IDF Ground Controller-to-Pilot transcripts.
Like the WTC, the other evidence was seized and has refused to be released.
How many lies should we tell Dr. Frank Greening that Israel has to make before we accept the word of CIA Director, Richard Helms, the crew and Stephen Forslund , who said Israel knew they were attacking Americans?
kahlmyishmael
11th April 2007 - 11:12 PM
QUOTE (FactCheck+Apr 11 2007, 09:38 PM)
I just heard Greening debate Fetzer on Fetzer's radio show. One topic came up which I thought needed more debate.
The suggestion came up that scientists are easily swayed by their corporate masters to produce results in line with what is best for the corporation. He gives his own example where he was told they all had to be "on the same page." The suggestion here is the NIST could be doing the same thing for their government masters.
There are many examples I can think of where scientists whored themselves for one reason or another. Money or politics are two major reasons. We all know the cigarette companies had scientists who just about murdered millions by suggesting smoke doesn't cause cancer. Scientists can be just as immoral as anyone else. Global warming also comes to mind. Not one peer reviewed paper suggest man isn't effecting the speed in which we are warming the planet. Or that the speed isn't going to cause the a ripple effect in the ecosystem. Yet a few scientists for the oil industry sing "Don't worry, be happy".
But there is a CLEAR distinction between the NIST and those corporate whores. The difference is all the support from the other civil/structural engineers the NIST enjoys. Why would MIT say the buildings could collapse to the ground if they were scared of losing government money? If they were scared of the government why wouldn't they just pass on the issue? Why would they go out of their way to help murderers? Why Bazant? He's a well respected professor who has passed many peer reviewed papers. Why stick his neck on the chopping block if he doesn't have too? He didn't have someone saying "We have to be on the same page" because he created his own page.
The point I make is not that they can be wrong about something in their papers. My point is why would they lie to the point of covering up a mass murder?
I think this is a very important point. You can't conflate the NIST scientists with other corporate scientists due to the
proactive nature of support from many other scientists. This goes well beyond them just saying the NIST is right.
But Greening himself proves not every scientist in the world will be moved by money or politics. That is unless there is only one moral scientist like Greening.
I also don't see why Greening seemed upset that the NIST didn't follow the collapse to the ground. He made it sound like they were just lazy. MIT said they did easy calculations which showed the buildings were doomed once the top block fell. Greening himself wrote a paper on the subject. This was on top of Bazant's paper. Did they really need to create another or they are somehow abdicating their responsibilities? It seems to me it would only be taken out of context by conspiracy theorists anyway. "Greening said <X>, Bazant said <Y>, NIST said <Z>, CONSPIRACY!!!
It's my experience that adding complexity to already confused people only adds confusion.
Splendid!
Then let's just hear you say whether NIST "drastically misrepresented" the column dimensions from Floor 78 to 83
We can use that as a starting point for Dr. Greening to fashion a statement to back with his professional reputation, correct?
Fact Check... Dr. Greening is not backing Arthur and Grumpy's "intellectual honesty" with the full force of his "professional reputation".
Shaemful of Dr. Greening not to stand behinf their "intellectual honesty", correct?
Unless, Arthur and Grumpy are engaged in "Intellectual dishonesty" and Dr. Greening knows that they are....
But then you OTHER solid citizens of the OCT crowd would have denounced both GRUMPY and Arthur if they had been dishonest.
So proudly proclaim that Dr. Franak Greening should proudly back the statement we'll all fashion jointly regarding Diagram 3-3!
Rejoice!!!
Rejoice!!!
kahlmyishmael
11th April 2007 - 11:20 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 11 2007, 11:00 PM)
Except its NOT a yes or no question.
A ) NIST doesn't represent that it is a scale drawing.
B ) It is a COMPOSITE drawing of 6 floors, and since the columns aren't the same size (or type) on each of the floors, the idea of a scale drawing is SILLY.
C ) It is CLEARLY NOT a blueprint, so any EXPECTATION that it is to scale is yours alone.
D ) its PURPOSE was to show WHERE the damage was to the core and floors over a 6 floor area.
E ) NIST is obviously NOT misrepresenting the columns in the towers as they have a schedule in the NIST report that gives the EXACT dimensions of the columns you are referring to.
F ) We can go ON AND ON AND ON AND ON about this, but it IS rather pointless.
Arthur
Then Dr. Frank Greening should have absolutely NO PROBLEM backing the "intellectual honesty" displayed by you and Grumpy in this forum and on this topic...
So it does not drastically misrepresent the dimensions at Floor 83?
The let's fashion a statement for Rosie O'Donnell that Dr. Frank Greening can proudly back with his "professional reputation".
I think its just absolutely shameful that he has not backed your "intellectual honesty" on the explanation you provided on George Bush seeing the first plane crash.
Well...whoo doggy... he sure is going to back it on this by pointing out what is and is not to scale AS WELL as confirm that the dimension of Floor 83 is not drastically misrepresented.
Also, Dr. Frank Greening can back with his reputation Grumpy's statements about the impurities in the "flowing aluminum" that made it look like "flowing steel"
It is outrageous that he has not backed you all so far, correct?
adoucette
11th April 2007 - 11:28 PM
YAWN
Arthur
David B. Benson
11th April 2007 - 11:47 PM
What Arthur just wrote...
kahlmyishmael
12th April 2007 - 12:09 AM
Dr. Frank Greening(NEU-FONZE)1) Arthur HIMSELF mentioned 6 floors... surely the NIST drawing would not drastically misrepresent the dimensions of the columns at Floor 83... otherwise Arthur would never have raised that as a topic(Unless he was engaging in an act of "intellectual dishonesty")
But then... if Arthur had engaged in an act of "intellectual dishonesty"...the flood of OCTers would have come forward to denounce him... unless, they also were "intellectually dishonest".
Back Arthur's representations and those of NIST with the full force of your professional reputation and we can send the statement that we jointly fashion to 911research, Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratory, Kevin Barrett, Gordon Ross, Alex Jones and Rosie O'Donnell.
So far, no one has asked you to back the scholarship of Grumpy and Arthur, other than me..... hmmmm!
2) The steel members that APPEARED TO BE "partially evaporated" at WTC 7..... prseumably, we do not have "sublimation" with steel like we do with "dry ice"(conversion of "state of matter" from "solid" directly to "gas" with no interstitial liquid phase).
Let's therefore NOT CONSIDER the enrgy requirements for evaporation but restrict ourselves to the discussion of energy needed for liquefaction.
Surely the tasked engineers and fire experts would NOT have made the evaporative statement if at the terminal end of the supposedly evaporated member ...
...there had not been evidence of liquid steel that had cooled back to a solid.
Was most of the kerosene jet fuel consumed in the fireball when impact was first made with WTC 7 by the big, old jet airli.......
...hold on a minute, Dr. Greening... I think Chainsaw is tuning into my tinfoil Alpha Wave helmet to tell me that he is about to encourage you to back the "intellectual honesty" of arthur and Grumpy...
No! No! Check that last statement, sir!... Chainsaw is telepathically communicating to me that NO PLANE struck WTC 7.
Repeat!
No plane struck WTC 7.
Dr. Frank Greening.... how did we get the presence of liquified steel that had re-cooled to a solid at the terminal ends of the "steel members" where the engineers and fire experts mistakenly thought evaporation had occurred.
2700 degrees Fahrenheit, Dr. Greeening.
Is that as big a mystery as the 15 micron diameter iron spheres that you talked to Dr. Steven Jones about.
Dr Greening...thank you for that "intelligent fruit crumble" recipe... It is absolutely delicious!!!!
3) Dr. Greening.... MaskedMarauder and Grumpy BOTH did not deal with the doctored evidence produced by Israel in the USS Liberty murders.
Was that "inadvertent" or acts of "intellectual dishonesty" on their parts?
Where was the flood of OCTers then who would denounce them if it was not "inadvertent"
Dr. greening...are you posessed of the same "intellectual honesty" as Masked Marauder, Arthur and Grumpy?
4)Dr. Greening... Gordon Ross, in the journal of 911studies, made a reply to your analysis which is included there.
Can you hyperlink me to where you have publicly responded to his critique?
We can fashion a statement for Alex Jones and Rosie O' Donnell on all these points and back them with the full force of your professional reputation,correct?
'
FactCheck
12th April 2007 - 12:11 AM
I see greening has a new friend.
kahlmyishmael
12th April 2007 - 12:15 AM
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Apr 11 2007, 04:27 PM)
David Benson,
Let's fashion a JOINT PHYORG FORUM statement to annihilate this 911 research lie that .......
" NIST's Final Report drastically misrepresents the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through the 83rd floors."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/d...ist_fig_3_3.pnghttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.htmlFigure 3-3 From NIST's Final Report drastically misrepresents the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through the 83rd floors.
This is surely an outrageous lie told by 911research...and when Rosie O'Donnell reads our joint PhysOrg statement she can march right down to the Port Authority with a TV Camera on Natioanl TV to demand those publicly-accessible blueprints and annihilate that 911research lie.
I'd like you to write the statement to the 3 yahoo!groups, David...
Then we can also send it to debunking911.com and 911myths.com and hey!!! ...while we're at it...we'll mail it off to dunkindonuts.org... I'm sure those chaps would be interested in having some unusual snacktime reading
Hi David...
Arthur is yawning because he has been caught in a lie.
He is bailing out.
List all the people who have encouraged Dr. Frank Greening to back Arthur and Grumpy with the full force of his professional reputation.
You have not even done so yourself.
The 83rd floor would presumably have had the smallest dimensions... Does Figure 3-3 drastically misrepresent the dimensions of the Floor 83 colums?
Fashion a reply which youwould like Dr. Frank Greening to back with the full force of his professional reputation, David B Benson.
kahlmyishmael
12th April 2007 - 12:30 AM
QUOTE (FactCheck+Apr 12 2007, 12:11 AM)
I see greening has a new friend.
Greening stated on the Barrett radio interview that the 15 micron iron spheres were one of the 'great mysteries"
Let's concentrate on the termial portions of the "steel members' that were mistakenly referred to as "appear to have been evaporated" or some such thing at WTC 7.
Those terminal ends, of necessity, would have had to have presented themselves physically as "molten steel" which had re-cooled into a solid.
We need 2700 degrees Fahrenheit to liquefy steel... Forget the temperature/energy neeeded for evaporation... let's deal with the liquified terminal ends that had re-cooled into a solid.
2700 degrees.
So far... no one has encouraged Dr. Frank Greening to back the statements("intellectual honesty") of Arthur and Grumpy and MaskedMarauder with the full force of his professional reputation.
I don't know why he'd need encouragement in the first place,but it is strange that none of you OCTers have encouraged him to do so...
..nor why he has failed to do so himself.
Regardless, I still have plenty of this delicious "intelligent fruit crumble" to consume..,. Plenty of time, therefore, to witness Dr. Frank Greening to back them tomorrow.
cerberus
12th April 2007 - 01:19 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 8 2007, 11:58 PM)
The Bush/Cheney admin has been one of the most corrupt, dishonest and incompetent in history, they would much rather lie to us than not. But they are too inept to have successfully covered up any conspiracy involving thousands of people.
Thousands of people. Where do you get this crap? It would have taken a couple dozen at the most. The buildings’ owner (to bypass security) along with a small team to rig the buildings for CD. A team of a half dozen working under a construction/maintenance or asbestos abatement cover could have pulled it off at a slow pace if the CD job was spread out over months. Having worked in numerous tall buildings, I can assure you that maintenance and construction workers are always running around and nobody gives them a second glance. They could have also worked nights.
Given the compartmentalized and autocratic nature of military/intelligence operations, you would need one or two people each at a high level in NORAD/NMCC/Secret Service (to run the multiple war games we know were going on and disrupt the normal fighter response protocols), FBI and CIA (to squelch pre-9/11 investigations, which in fact is exactly what happened).
That still leaves a dozen people to manage the post-attack investigations—one or two people each in positions of operational/executive control at FEMA, the lead contractors responsible for cleanup, the 9-11 Commission (all it took was one man, Philip Zelikow, to bungle their investigation), and NIST. As far as the underlings in these organizations, most people, like you, are authoritarian personalities, so they will just unquestioningly lap up whatever they are being fed by authority figures. It’s not like some government bureaucrat or contractor dependant for their very livelihoods on staying in the good graces of the government is going to be looking to question given directives (about what to investigate and more importantly, what doesn’t need to be investigated).
As the numerous 9-11 whistleblowers that have come out will attest, not everybody is an authoritarian hand-licker and a very small minority do have some measure of integrity, so it’s not like the conspiracy was “successfully covered up” as you suggest. Sibel Edmonds for example, who had top secret clearance in the FBI and who is under two gag orders that forbid her to testify in court or mention the names of the people or the countries involved in the 9-11 conspiracy: "If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up."
As far as the ability to keep things under wraps, consider the National Security Agency, which has a larger budget and more employees than the CIA. It was organized in 1949. This entire agency of the federal government remained completely hidden from the public until the 1980s, over three decades later. One of the programs run by NSA, believed to have started in the 1940s, was Project Shamrock, through which all major transatlantic telegraph cables were tapped with the cooperation of AT&T and other communications carriers. This vast program – involving people building, installing and running equipment all over the world, and yet numerous others watching and translating conversations – was kept entirely secret until the 1990s. Most American citizens have never heard of this program to this day. Other projects involving many more people than the 9-11 job would have required that were successfully kept under wraps are the Manhattan Project and the F117-A Stealth Fighter project.
The official narrative requires that only a couple of dozen poorly trained Islamic radicals deftly maneuvered through the world’s most powerful and well-funded intelligence gathering and military machine. How much easier might it have been for a similar number of people to do so, employing many unknowing others for secondary, compartmented tasks, if those handful with full knowledge of the plan also knew every aspect of the U.S. intelligence and military machine, and were in key positions governing its activities and responses?
In short, it is patently obvious that you don’t even have the beginnings of a clue what you are talking about.
adoucette
12th April 2007 - 02:10 AM
YAWN
Arthur
Grumpy
12th April 2007 - 02:16 AM
cerberus
QUOTE
In short, it is patently obvious that you don’t even have the beginnings of a clue what you are talking about.
Back at you, DA.
Grumpy
cerberus
12th April 2007 - 03:50 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 8 2007, 11:58 PM)
What about those that were "disturbed"??? Bulldozed into piles, as I stated.
What about them? I’m just going by the results of NIST’s own workstation tests. You were the one appealing to the authority of these tests earlier in the thread. Where is your evidence that the time to reach peak temperature and the rate of heat transfer to the steel would have been materially different with rubbelized debris (with a likely reduced surface area) left in the wake of the aircraft impact? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any.
QUOTE
What crappy "troother" site did you get this steaming pile of BS from??? 800-1000C is a lot more realistic.
I got it from NIST (NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli), you witless *****. They examined more than 170 areas on the steel recovered from the Twin Towers for evidence of fire exposure. Only three of these 170 locations indicated temperatures above 250 C, and according to NIST, one of these three locations appeared to have experienced temperatures above 250 C after the collapse. According to NIST (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/PublicUpdateFinal.pdf), the steel was selected specifically from the areas that experienced fire and impact damage, included all 14 grades of steel used for the exterior columns and two grades of steel used for 99% of the core columns, and was adequate for estimating the maximum temperature reached by the steel.
This is also consistent with previous tests of the performance of unprotected structural steel subjected to prolonged and intense fires, like those conducted by Corus Construction. These tests were of open-sided car parks, so unlike the WTC fires, the fires in these tests were not ventilation limited. The range of possible fire intensities was tested, with the fuel load coming from multiple parked cars (loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc.). The maximum temperature that the unprotected steel columns reached across tests conducted in multiple countries was 360 C, with other tests seeing lower maximums of 242 C and 320 C.
Based on the above, your “a lot more realistic” estimate of maximum steel temps of 800-1000 C caused by the short-lived WTC fires is fantasy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What crappy "troother" site did you get this steaming pile of BS from??? 800-1000C is a lot more realistic. |
I got it from NIST (NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli), you witless *****. They examined more than 170 areas on the steel recovered from the Twin Towers for evidence of fire exposure. Only three of these 170 locations indicated temperatures above 250 C, and according to NIST, one of these three locations appeared to have experienced temperatures above 250 C after the collapse. According to NIST (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/PublicUpdateFinal.pdf), the steel was selected specifically from the areas that experienced fire and impact damage, included all 14 grades of steel used for the exterior columns and two grades of steel used for 99% of the core columns, and was adequate for estimating the maximum temperature reached by the steel.
This is also consistent with previous tests of the performance of unprotected structural steel subjected to prolonged and intense fires, like those conducted by Corus Construction. These tests were of open-sided car parks, so unlike the WTC fires, the fires in these tests were not ventilation limited. The range of possible fire intensities was tested, with the fuel load coming from multiple parked cars (loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc.). The maximum temperature that the unprotected steel columns reached across tests conducted in multiple countries was 360 C, with other tests seeing lower maximums of 242 C and 320 C.
Based on the above, your “a lot more realistic” estimate of maximum steel temps of 800-1000 C caused by the short-lived WTC fires is fantasy.
So all the rollaround chairs, desks and dividers would have stopped the motion of the plane??? What a stupid statement.
Straw man. I never claimed that. What a stupid statement. The point is that the kinetic energy wasn’t available to dislodge fireproofing over the wide area that NIST claims. In their ballistic tests of the adhesiveness of the fireproofing, it took NIST firing a shotgun directly at the fireproofing—1 MJ of energy per square meter of surface area—to shear it off the steel. When you apply this to the surface area that NIST claims was stripped of its fireproofing, it is several times the entire amount of kinetic energy available from the impact of the plane, which wouldn’t have been available in the first place beyond what was directly impacted by the impact debris because it was consumed in the breaking of columns and the crushing of the floors and the airplane. This logical fallacy arises from the fact that NIST made the erroneous assumption that fireproofing was removed wherever office furnishings were disturbed.
QUOTE
Try 200%, DA. Nothing is designed for 2000%, that is just a "troother" lie.
"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
--John Skilling, Chief Structural Engineer for WTC construction
(How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, ENR, 4/2/1964)
cerberus
12th April 2007 - 03:56 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 11 2007, 11:28 PM)
YAWNArthur
The fact that neither you or Grumpy is able to provide a rational counter-argument is duly noted.
newton
12th April 2007 - 03:59 AM
4 million millionaires, and 400 billionaires in the USA.
and OCTs think it would be 'impossible' to round up a crew of a few thousand n'ere do wells.
that's OCT "thinking" for you.
(p.s. 'crazy chainsaw', ...you've given me hammer envy. i didn't even know there was such a thing as a 25 pound 'persuader'(sledgehammer), and i've moved sixty foot steel beams into place with a 12 lb.
which brings me to the 'feeling' of momentum transfers, and INERTIA.
it is HIGHLY unlikely(impossible) that the 'mother of all sledgehammers'(AKA, 'the cap') could pummel the GODFATHER OF ALL SLEDGEHAMMERS(the rest of the building) into submission.
depsite the enourmous mass of the cap, the way more enourmous mass of the rest of the building could not possibly be overcome by the cap's potential energy. it would bounce/slide off the sides, not fall straight through an increasingly more massive structure.
as a 'driver', you should be able to 'feel' this TRUTH, chainsaw.)
pound for pound, the lower portion of the building WINS the inertia battle BY FAR.
nice post, cererbus. nice to see another reasonable person, here.
Grumpy
12th April 2007 - 04:27 AM
newton
QUOTE
it is HIGHLY unlikely(impossible) that the 'mother of all sledgehammers'(AKA, 'the cap') could pummel the GODFATHER OF ALL SLEDGEHAMMERS(the rest of the building) into submission.
Your feelings aside, that is exactly what happened. No explosives needed. The rest of the building was only as strong as the floor connections, once these were overcome the rest just fell apart. By the way, how much energy WOULD it take to move the thousands of ton of the top block to the side??? I mean if cerebus is claiming there wasn't enough energy to move a few pieces of furnature around where is the energy going to come from??? Between the two of you I'm not quite sure who is dumber.
Grumpy
newton
12th April 2007 - 04:35 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 12 2007, 04:27 AM)
newton
Your feelings aside, that is exactly what happened. No explosives needed. The rest of the building was only as strong as the floor connections, once these were overcome the rest just fell apart. By the way, how much energy WOULD it take to move the thousands of ton of the top block to the side??? I mean if cerebus is claiming there wasn't enough energy to move a few pieces of furnature around where is the energy going to come from??? Between the two of you I'm not quite sure who is dumber.
Grumpy
i 'ant 'ear 'ou.
inertia of the mass of both columns and floors MUST be overcome, dumberer.
simple TRANSFER OF MOMENTUM and INERTIA. a body at rest prefers to remain at rest. a body in motion prefers to remain in motion. for every action, there is an EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.
this is why no calculator, or F.E.A. is REALLY needed to KNOW that the the towers could not knock themselves down so quickly, and with such a uniform(ish) velocity, as observed.
of course, you can't think for yourself, so you don't get it.
Grumpy
12th April 2007 - 04:58 AM
newton
QUOTE
inertia of the mass of both columns and floors MUST be overcome, dumberer
Actually, dumberest, the resistence(inertia) of the frames was simply bypassed by the floors pancaking, the frames were simply pushed aside as the top block fell and being unbraced, fell over uncrushed. That is why most of the outer frames were straight, almost untouched. The floor connections limited the amount of resistence to that needed to strip them, no more. The kenetic energy of the falling block was orders of magnitude more than needed to strip one floor, and the block encountered the floors one at a time.
So you two losers can cry all you want, but the buildings fell due to the factors outlined by NIST in their report. No one has laid a glove on it yet, and neither of you are even on the right track to do so.
Grumpy
newton
12th April 2007 - 05:59 AM
*cough* CORE *cough*
not.
*cough* VECTOR *cough*
not.
dumbererester
newton
12th April 2007 - 06:29 AM
Chainsaw,
12th April 2007 - 12:21 PM
QUOTE (newton+Apr 12 2007, 03:59 AM)
4 million millionaires, and 400 billionaires in the USA.
and OCTs think it would be 'impossible' to round up a crew of a few thousand n'ere do wells.
that's OCT "thinking" for you.
(p.s. 'crazy chainsaw', ...you've given me hammer envy. i didn't even know there was such a thing as a 25 pound 'persuader'(sledgehammer), and i've moved sixty foot steel beams into place with a 12 lb.
which brings me to the 'feeling' of momentum transfers, and INERTIA.
it is HIGHLY unlikely(impossible) that the 'mother of all sledgehammers'(AKA, 'the cap') could pummel the GODFATHER OF ALL SLEDGEHAMMERS(the rest of the building) into submission.
depsite the enourmous mass of the cap, the way more enourmous mass of the rest of the building could not possibly be overcome by the cap's potential energy. it would bounce/slide off the sides, not fall straight through an increasingly more massive structure.
as a 'driver', you should be able to 'feel' this TRUTH, chainsaw.)
pound for pound, the lower portion of the building WINS the inertia battle BY FAR.
nice post, cererbus. nice to see another reasonable person, here.
It is a sledge hammer used for reforming spade oil bits in the oil fields with the invention of the tungsten carbide bits they are no longer made.
How do you think the guy who built the spruce Goose got to be a Billionaire.
I also have a sixteen pound forming hammer, and a 22 pound tire hammer.
What off it?
I have to say your thinking is rather simplistic newton, sorry just an observation.
As per Dr. Greenings interview with Dr. Fetzer, the central core could support 2000% of its own weight in compression load in a perfectly still universe with no outside force to move the beams. However the slightest oscillation under that load would cause the weld joints to break destroying the columns.
Structural Steel is very strong in compression, but weak in tension.
The piece of steel I was using was a low carbon soft steel that way it would bend before it broke.
Heating and straitening it caused it to form hard spots within the steel, that is what I did not want, so I heated it again and then quinced it at the appropriate level.
That way I drop a rock on it again it will bend before it breaks. IT is actually, a part of an old drag line crane.
I live on a farm I save what good steel I can because the stuff brakes, and constantly has to be repaired. You should see the number of re-welded spots on my Wide Winder Rotary Cutter.
Still remember when I forgot about the oil well and cut off the 8 inch by 1/2 inch thick oil casing an busted the gear box off the thing.
reasonwhy
12th April 2007 - 12:59 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 11 2007, 05:09 AM)
That's simply YOUR uninformed OPINION from looking at a single two dimensional representation of the damage.
But it IS instructional, that although you claim NO EXPERTISE in this area, you now claim you can look at THEIR PUBLISHED WORK and call them LIARS.
Typical CTer.
What's more you apparently think that this REMARKABLE INSIGHT you possess somehow proves that the NIST report is wrong.
"If ONLY NIST hadn't fudged that Column 1003 in the WTC2 Impact Model, THE TOWER WOULD HAVE STOOD"TOO FUNNY.
Oh, and you might want to look at Figure 9-79 on pg 299, the More Severe case, because NIST ultimately concluded the damge was more toward THAT end of the spectrum. As you know, the base case for WTC 2 became Case C. The More Severe became Case D.
Arthur
I doesn’t take an "FEA expert" or "REMARKABLE INSIGHT" to SEE if a column is SEVERED!
Anybody can see for themselves in the 3-D figure that column 1002 is not severed on three floors as you quote from the NIST report.
It has been proven repeatedly that the NIST report is nothing but an expensive taxpayer JOKE (on the American public that pays the bill).
You think the NIST misrepresentation of column 1002 and 1003 would CHANGE the outcome of any of the FEA models (what a simpleton)?
NIST was not able to simulate collapse initiation, the bowing in of the walls, global collapse (or most anything else) so why would it CHANGE anything?
adoucette
12th April 2007 - 01:50 PM
QUOTE (cerberus+Apr 11 2007, 10:50 PM)
I got it from NIST (NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli), you witless *****. They examined more than 170 areas on the steel recovered from the Twin Towers for evidence of fire exposure. Only three of these 170 locations indicated temperatures above 250 C, and according to NIST, one of these three locations appeared to have experienced temperatures above 250 C after the collapse. According to NIST (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/PublicUpdateFinal.pdf), the steel was selected specifically from the areas that experienced fire and impact damage, included all 14 grades of steel used for the exterior columns and two grades of steel used for 99% of the core columns, and was adequate for estimating the maximum temperature reached by the steel.
Well if you got it from 1-3 then you should have read FURTHER.
See Table 6-2 and Fig 6-29a and Fig 6-29B. on pg 86 because it will show you the ONLY core columns that were recovered from the fire areas.
ONLY TWO OF WHICH had sufficient paint for the analysis.
And for which the Fire Simulator Model AGREED with.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G Chapter 8 Global Thermal Response of WTC 1.
As for the REST of your arguments, they are in fact covered in 1-5 so simply tell us WHAT PART of the NIST FIRE DYANMICS ANALYSIS you disagree with and why.
These STRAWMAN arguements are POINTLESS.
As to your QUOTING, its interesting how you ATTEMPT to decieve:
Here is the ACTUAL QUOTE:
NIST has samples of all 14 grades of steel used in the exterior column-spandrel panels. It also has samples of two grades of steel used for the core columns (wide flange and built-up box columns) that represent steel used to fabricate 99 percent of the core columns. Further, it has samples of both strengths of steel that were specified for the floor joists; two strengths each for the rods and the angles that comprised the bar joists.
The NIST analysis of recovered WTC steel includes the following:
• Collection and cataloging of the structural steel
• Documenting failure mechanisms and damage based on visual observations
• Determining the metallurgical and mechanical properties of steel, weldments, and
connections for use in analyzing baseline structural performance, aircraft impact damage, and thermal-structural response to the fires until collapse initiation
• Estimating the maximum temperature reached by available steel
• Comparing measured steel properties with applicable material specifications
Arthur
adoucette
12th April 2007 - 01:58 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 12 2007, 07:59 AM)
I doesn’t take an "FEA expert" or "REMARKABLE INSIGHT" to SEE if a column is SEVERED!
Anybody can see for themselves in the 3-D figure that column 1002 is not severed on three floors as you quote from the NIST report.
It has been proven repeatedly that the NIST report is nothing but an expensive taxpayer JOKE (on the American public that pays the bill).
You think the NIST misrepresentation of column 1002 and 1003 would CHANGE the outcome of any of the FEA models (what a simpleton)?
NIST was not able to simulate collapse initiation, the bowing in of the walls, global collapse (or most anything else) so why would it CHANGE anything?
Well then you might want to check on the definition that NIST uses for the clasification SEVERED. IT is the next step up from HEAVY and is simply the point at which a column is no longer carrying any load. I don't think it means the column is necessarily CUT at that floor.
But of course that is MY interpretaion of the report.
STILL, the NIST report STANDS until someone publishes a refutation.
SO, what are you waiting for RW? You think you have "the goods" on them.
You claim to have PROVEN REPEATEDLY that it is wrong.
So I can't fathom WHY you have done NOTHING about it.
WHY NOT RW?
WHY NOT?
ROTFLMAO
Arthur
PS (Isn't it HILARIOUS when CT'ers have to RESORT to quote mining from the NIST report to try to PROVE that the NIST report is wrong?)
kahlmyishmael
12th April 2007 - 02:53 PM
Hello Dr Frank Grening(NEU-FONZE),
I see you still have not decided to back Arthur(Adoucette's), Grumpy's, nor Masked Marauder's assertions with the full force of your professional reputation.
I see none of the other OCTers have asked you to do so either.
Dr. Greening,
Professor Steven Jones, whom you have spokento on the phone, claims that Investigators were required by code to look for the presence of thermate.
Grumpy, on this forum, stated something to the effect that thermate-sniffing (chihuaha?) dogs brought to the scene somehow met that requirement(bow-wow spectographic analysis utilizing the woof-woof calibration standard?)
Is that the first time in the history of the world that compliance with the regulatory code was met by the use of trained dogs?
Dr. Frank Greening... I saw no ohter OCTers challenge Grumpy's fraudulent assertion THEREFORE you should be able to join in with Grumpy who calls the 'troothers"(including Professor Jones a liar".
Dr. Greening.... since no ohter OCTers have challenged Grumpy....would you care to back his statement of code-compliance with the full force of your professional reputation...
...and join in with Grumpy and the other OCTers by calling Professor Jones a "liar" just like all the other 911 troothers.
Dr Greening... did MaskedMarauder and Grumpy BOTH inadvertently avoid discussion of the doctored USS Liberty evidence provided by Israel OR DID THEY intentionally avoid discussing the doctored evidence.
I don't mind 'appeals to logic" as long as what exists in the way of "concrete evidence of doctoring" has first been disposed of.
The other OCTers on this forum did not challenge Grumpy or MaskedMarauder on this deceitful act.
Dr Greening,
Adouctte(Arthur) claimed that before being "whisked away into the Florida classroom", George Bush and his entourage, with the TV volume turned down--- actually saw the second plane crash into the WTC.... and that Andrew Card was whispering into the president's ear,
"Mr.President...that was not the first plane you saw crash into the tower...it was a second plane bedfore we had calgon whisk you away into this classroom...
.......furthermore Mr. President, that was NOT a Cessna you saw striking the tower; it was a 757....
...Mr. President...that television that was obviously on with the volume that was obviously off... we're all just busting to find out what the conclusion of the goat's dilemna in this children's story is--- but "national security" interests compel us to inform you that....
...America is under attack by two terrible pilots!"
Dr. Greening....
Would yo back with the full force of your professional reputation Grumpy's assertion that Professor Steven Jones lied about code-compliance being met(you should be able to produce testimony taken directly from the thermate-sniffing chihauha)...
...and also Arthur's assertion as to what Andrew Card was whispering into Geoge Bush's ear("Mr President...that was really the second plane you saw on TV")?
kahlmyishmael
12th April 2007 - 03:08 PM
Chainsaw, David B Benson, and Palpatane,
Grumpy mainatins that code-compliance to investigate the use of thermite was met, in part, by bringing in dogs.
That would mean Professor Steven Jones lied on the radio.
I have not seen any of you denounce Grumpy for his "intellectual dishonesty" THEREFORE you should have absolutely NO PROBLEM advocating that Dr Frank Greening publicly call Steven Jones a liar and back such a claim with the full force of his professional reputation.
Also...none of you challenged Arthur(Adoucette) on his contention that Bush was "whisked away" from a TV that was OBVIOUSLY ON with the volume that was OBVIOUSLY OFF...
...so Andrew Card must have been whispering into President Bush's ear..."MR President... you actually saw a second plane hit the towers... that was not the first plane... America is under attack".
But the principal of the school said that George Bush never saw any TV that was obviously on prior to being whisked away into the classroom.
Regardless, you three would have challenged Arthur's "intellectual dishonesty"...so you should have no problem telling Dr Greening that that indeed was what Andrew Card whispered into George Bush's ear ...
..and that he should have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM backing Arthur's contention withhhhhh....
...the full force of Dr Frank Greening's professional reputationnnnnnnnn...
Fruit crumble anyone???
It's "intelligently-made" fruit crumble!!!
einsteen
12th April 2007 - 03:22 PM
Where’s N-F, hope he will be back soon? The problem that I have with the collapse initiation theory is that before this happened the columns were able to hold the static load of the building. Now dynamic load is something completely different, but that requires movement and movement is velocity. Assuming there is no velocity first then a force is required to give the mass its initial velocity, but in static equilibrium the static force (on M14 or M29) is zero. This is something like the chicken and the egg therefore the only possibility is that the movement was there from the very first beginning. This movement should be very slow and therefore can be approached as being constant (linear), but that means that the total force on the block is still zero. It will be a complex/impossible job to determine the force as function of a slowly toppling block, what I understand from N-F is that this is a little bit what the official theory tries to describe. The problem now is that if you look at a high resolution video of the North tower’s block (M14=antenna) there is indeed a toppling block but it is no movement that takes an hour or something. It is still something that happens in a fraction of a second. Further I’m also curious what happened about 10 seconds before collapse initiation. In the past I’ve had discussions at JREF about a camera that shakes, their debunk was that someone hits the tripod of that camera, but I don’t believe that because you also see a piece of debris falling out that impact zone at the same moment and why would someone hit a fixed camera just before the collapse? Something very major happened a couple of seconds before collapse initiation. My own idea is that something happened with the core but I’ve never seen a good explanation about these shakings…Anyone here ever thought about these shakings ?
Chainsaw,
12th April 2007 - 03:24 PM
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Apr 12 2007, 03:08 PM)
Chainsaw, David B Benson, and Palpatane,
Grumpy mainatins that code-compliance to investigate the use of thermite was met, in part, by bringing in dogs.
That would mean Professor Steven Jones lied on the radio.
I have not seen any of you denounce Grumpy for his "intellectual dishonesty" THEREFORE you should have absolutely NO PROBLEM advocating that Dr Frank Greening publicly call Steven Jones a liar and back such a claim with the full force of his professional reputation.
Also...none of you challenged Arthur(Adoucette) on his contention that Bush was "whisked away" from a TV that was OBVIOUSLY ON with the volume that was OBVIOUSLY OFF...
...so Andrew Card must have been whispering into President Bush's ear..."MR President... you actually saw a second plane hit the towers... that was not the first plane... America is under attack".
But the principal of the school said that George Bush never saw any TV that was obviously on prior to being whisked away into the classroom.
Regardless, you three would have challenged Arthur's "intellectual dishonesty"...so you should have no problem telling Dr Greening that that indeed was what Andrew Card whispered into George Bush's ear ...
..and that he should have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM backing Arthur's contention withhhhhh....
...the full force of Dr Frank Greening's professional reputationnnnnnnnn...
Fruit crumble anyone???
It's "intelligently-made" fruit crumble!!!
What chemical signature would thermate leave in a building where aluminum oxidation with other metals is known to have occurred?
If I find a microwave oven and a roasted-Burned black chicken in forest fire debris it is not evidence that the chicken was Microwaved now is it.
The problem is that Science demands evidence even of Dr. Steven E. Jones, that is the problem the Dr Greening now has with NIST. DA.
If you want just to be Political please find a Politics forum!
Grumpy
12th April 2007 - 05:15 PM
einsteen
You usually display at least a modicum of logic. But...
QUOTE
Where’s N-F, hope he will be back soon? The problem that I have with the collapse initiation theory is that before this happened the columns were able to hold the static load of the building. Now dynamic load is something completely different, but that requires movement and movement is velocity. Assuming there is no velocity first then a force is required to give the mass its initial velocity, but in static equilibrium the static force (on M14 or M29) is zero.
Gravity(though probably the weakest of the physical forces) has a way of fooling people sometimes. Yes, the buildings did survive the initial forces of the plane impacts. In the case of tower two, it was a close thing, it was measured by transit to be off plumb soon after the impacts. The reason was that the damage to the outside frame was on two adjacent walls and that the corner between those walls was engulfed in the most intense fire seen in either tower. In the documentary "The Miricle of Stairway B" on the History Channel there is video of that corner failing and a ripple of failures on the same floor "Unzipping" around both walls just as the top block starts leaning over. The failure of that one corner overloaded(to the point of buckling)the beams on either side of that corner, which cause the next beams outward to fold, etc all the way across the sides, then that side of the tower above the impact zones tilted, disconnected fron the bottom portion and, when the north wall failed, dropped straight down into the interior of the remaining building, stripping the floors so they started pancaking inside the remaining tower and, being no longer braced by the floors the outside frame was simply pushed aside in long sections(banana peels). The core??? It had no way of stopping the falling debris, the floors(upon which the debris had fallen)were stripped and gone and the core collumns too long for their width to hold them upright and, as they bent, the welds snapped.
Tower One had a multi floor initial collapse zone that was actually above the impact floors and was due more to fire effects.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where’s N-F, hope he will be back soon? The problem that I have with the collapse initiation theory is that before this happened the columns were able to hold the static load of the building. Now dynamic load is something completely different, but that requires movement and movement is velocity. Assuming there is no velocity first then a force is required to give the mass its initial velocity, but in static equilibrium the static force (on M14 or M29) is zero. |
Gravity(though probably the weakest of the physical forces) has a way of fooling people sometimes. Yes, the buildings did survive the initial forces of the plane impacts. In the case of tower two, it was a close thing, it was measured by transit to be off plumb soon after the impacts. The reason was that the damage to the outside frame was on two adjacent walls and that the corner between those walls was engulfed in the most intense fire seen in either tower. In the documentary "The Miricle of Stairway B" on the History Channel there is video of that corner failing and a ripple of failures on the same floor "Unzipping" around both walls just as the top block starts leaning over. The failure of that one corner overloaded(to the point of buckling)the beams on either side of that corner, which cause the next beams outward to fold, etc all the way across the sides, then that side of the tower above the impact zones tilted, disconnected fron the bottom portion and, when the north wall failed, dropped straight down into the interior of the remaining building, stripping the floors so they started pancaking inside the remaining tower and, being no longer braced by the floors the outside frame was simply pushed aside in long sections(banana peels). The core??? It had no way of stopping the falling debris, the floors(upon which the debris had fallen)were stripped and gone and the core collumns too long for their width to hold them upright and, as they bent, the welds snapped.
Tower One had a multi floor initial collapse zone that was actually above the impact floors and was due more to fire effects.
Anyone here ever thought about these shakings ?
In almost every report of a major fire there is some kind of secondary explosion on the film. Why, because they make great camera footage. Secondary explosions can have many sources, my guess in the WTC case is fuel from the aircraft that poured down an elevator shaft but puddled, unburned, in the bottom(maybe a previous explosive or deflagratory event had blown the fire out). As the building temps rise this puddled fuel could vaporize, filling the shaft with an explosive mixture of fuel/air and...well, you know the rest. Or how about a transformer engulfed in flame heated to the point that the oils inside explode. That is two sources that don't require that tens of thousands of my fellow patriotic Americans be involved in some paranoid fantasy of a conspiracy. So they make much more sense.
Grumpy
Capracus
12th April 2007 - 06:01 PM
QUOTE (einsteen+Apr 12 2007, 03:22 PM)
In the past I’ve had discussions at JREF about a camera that shakes, their debunk was that someone hits the tripod of that camera, but I don’t believe that because you also see a piece of debris falling out that impact zone at the same moment and why would someone hit a fixed camera just before the collapse? Something very major happened a couple of seconds before collapse initiation. My own idea is that something happened with the core but I’ve never seen a good explanation about these shakings…Anyone here ever thought about these shakings ?
Einsteen, are you referring to these examples of ground shaking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrPpkuw8qrohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=28...shake+wtc&hl=enThese are two identical videos, only the second one has had the audio edited to include a narration and some sounds of "thunder" for added effect. Notice no thunder in the first video. In either case the shaking of the image, or the thunder of the audio could easily be the result of a gust of wind, turbulence from a passing vehicle, or operator induced motions.
David B. Benson
12th April 2007 - 06:47 PM
einsteen --- Consider WTC 1. At collapse initiation, first the south wall buckles followed directly by the east and west walls. The load of the exterior columns for these walls is then transfer by the hat truss to the core. I checked in, I believe, NCSTAR1-6D that the hat truss was strong enough to accomplish this.
At this point, the surviving core columns are significantly overloaded. There is enough data in NCSTAR1-6D to determine that the average DCR was about 2. This is more than sufficient for inelastic behavior of the core columns, buckling and connection failure.
Then the top block, above these failures, rotated up to 8 arc-degrees, hinged on the north wall. Then the north wall broke and the top block descended.
What is rather surprising is that the resistance of about (1/3)g is approximately constant from collapse initiation through the first three seconds, using data provided by NEU-FONZE.
As for the -10 seconds, event, NIST surmises that this puff of smoke along the south wall was the result of a partial floor failure. In general I agree that things were seriously beginning to fail shortly before visible external movement.
adoucette
12th April 2007 - 07:17 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 12 2007, 01:47 PM)
As for the -10 seconds, event, NIST surmises that this puff of smoke along the south wall was the result of a partial floor failure. In general I agree that things were seriously beginning to fail shortly before visible external movement.
And those internal failures were accelerating as each failure caused increased loads on other stressed components, thus rapidly precipitated other failures.
Arthur
David B. Benson
12th April 2007 - 07:33 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 12 2007, 07:17 PM)
And those internal failures were accelerating as each failure caused increased loads on other stressed components, thus rapidly precipitated other failures.
Exactly.
A form of positive feedback which is first visible with the initial bowing-in of the south wall many minutes earlier. The process appears to be slow at first, but with growing (and accelerating) magnitude.
newton
12th April 2007 - 07:40 PM
QUOTE
"Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s implosion capabilities and DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System facilitate the demolition or dismantling of all types of steel and concrete facilities to provide the safe, expeditious and cost-effective removal of industrial structures." -CDI
"Our DREXS (Directional Remote Explosives Severance) systems are engineered and applied to segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment. State of the art, proprietary underwater blasting techniques guarantee fragmentation of concrete and masonry piers to removal limits, and maximize efficiency of debris removal." - CDI-UK
"Using its DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System, Controlled Demolition Incorporated segmented the spans into 300 ton sections which matched the lifting capabilities of Tidewater's equipment." -CDI
CDIQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
"Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s implosion capabilities and DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System facilitate the demolition or dismantling of all types of steel and concrete facilities to provide the safe, expeditious and cost-effective removal of industrial structures." -CDI
"Our DREXS (Directional Remote Explosives Severance) systems are engineered and applied to segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment. State of the art, proprietary underwater blasting techniques guarantee fragmentation of concrete and masonry piers to removal limits, and maximize efficiency of debris removal." - CDI-UK
"Using its DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System, Controlled Demolition Incorporated segmented the spans into 300 ton sections which matched the lifting capabilities of Tidewater's equipment." -CDI |
CDI Department of Defense (DOD)
Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate experience and expertise to assist Department of Defense (DOD) agencies and contractors in demolition operations on
sensitive projects, domestically and internationally. Through the support of our international network of offices and agent relationships, Controlled Demolition Incorporated can
respond promptly for defense-related consulting and performance requests on
short notice.QUOTE
Department of Justice
Professionalism, integrity and security are critical to Department of Justice investigations. Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate clearances and internal controls to support federal agencies involved in domestic or foreign investigations which involve the gathering of criminal evidence critical to our precepts of due process. The Loizeaux Group’s controlled, professional services and unmatched communication skills can support critical operations under tenuous circumstances.
let the foxes guard the henhouse, eh?
newton
12th April 2007 - 07:54 PM
QUOTE
The 451,000 square foot, 18-story, structural steel Traveler's Insurance Building blocked development of a valuable property in Boston's financial district. Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team was able to complete asbestos abatement/environmental remediation, prepare the structure for implosion and drop the massive structural steel building just 2 weeks after our client's last employee vacated the premises. Controlled Demolition Incorporated's DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System sequentially severed the 4 inch thick flanges of the buildings' support columns to drop the structure without damage to a Boston Fire Department facility just 30 feet away. The 60,000 cubic yards of debris generated by the implosion of this downtown office complex was so well fragmented that it was cleared from the site in just 6 weeks.
adoucette
12th April 2007 - 08:36 PM
So it took TWO WEEKS of UNFETTERED ACCESS and NO NEED TO HIDE what they were doing nor any inability to remove significant existing structural supports, for the company to drop a building that was just
1/10th the height and
1/2 the floor size of just
ONE WTC tower.
THANKS
Arthur
David B. Benson
12th April 2007 - 08:43 PM
Arthur --- That was two weeks after the last tenant moved out. For tenants moving out earlier, CDI had that much longer to prepare...
adoucette
12th April 2007 - 08:51 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 12 2007, 03:43 PM)
Arthur --- That was two weeks after the
last tenant moved out. For tenants moving out earlier, CDI had that much longer to prepare...
I'm trying to be conservative.
They might have this time to do surveys and do minor prep work but they wouldn't be able to install any explosives before all the tenents were out.
The toughest part for CD of the towers would be having to place them on the Fire/impact floors but also protect them from the plane impact and fires.
Arthur
adoucette
12th April 2007 - 09:32 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 12 2007, 01:01 PM)
Einsteen, are you referring to these examples of ground shaking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrPpkuw8qrohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=28...shake+wtc&hl=enThese are two identical videos, only the second one has had the audio edited to include a narration and some sounds of "thunder" for added effect. Notice no thunder in the first video. In either case the shaking of the image, or the thunder of the audio could easily be the result of a gust of wind, turbulence from a passing vehicle, or operator induced motions.
What's funny is CT'ers think something is going on in the Tower that is strong enough to shake this remote building that the camera is on, but this same force doesn't shake the towers.
Must be that new INVISIVIBE.
Arthur
kahlmyishmael
12th April 2007 - 09:40 PM
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Apr 12 2007, 03:24 PM)
What chemical signature would thermate leave in a building where aluminum oxidation with other metals is known to have occurred?
If I find a microwave oven and a roasted-Burned black chicken in forest fire debris it is not evidence that the chicken was Microwaved now is it.
The problem is that Science demands evidence even of Dr. Steven E. Jones, that is the problem the Dr Greening now has with NIST. DA.
If you want just to be Political please find a Politics forum!
Hello Chainsaw,
Did the government meet its responsibilities under the regulatory code to investigate thermite, in part, by bringing in dogs as Grumpy mainatins.
It must have ...otherwise you would have cahllenged the "intellectual dishonesty" demonstrated by your fellow OCTer.
Are you as "intellectually honest" as Grumpy has shown himself to be?
I'm asking becuase I'm beginning to doubt those 45 degree cuts don't "clearly" show what you "clearly" said they "clearly" did.
Anyhow, you have not challenged Grumpy's contention that the government met its responsibilities under the code...
...since Dr. Greening has spoken on the phone to Professor Jones....he should publicly call Jones a liar.... using Grumpy's rationale...and Greening should back it with the full force of his professional reputation--- I mean why not?--- NOT ONE OF YOU physorg forum members challenged Grumpy when he made that assertion --- so obviously Jones is a liar.
Ditto! with Adoucette's contention that Andrew Card whispered into Bush's ear---NOT ONE OF YOU OCTers challenged this display of "intellectual dishonesty"...
...only SINCE NOT ONE of you challenged it THEN BY EXTENSION Dr. Greening should have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM agreeing publicly and backing it with the full force of his professional reputation...
...but first, let's see him call Professor Jones a liar on not meeting the fire code motif.
kahlmyishmael
12th April 2007 - 10:04 PM
QUOTE (einsteen+Apr 12 2007, 03:22 PM)
Where’s N-F, hope he will be back soon? The problem that I have with the collapse initiation theory is that before this happened the columns were able to hold the static load of the building. Now dynamic load is something completely different, but that requires movement and movement is velocity. Assuming there is no velocity first then a force is required to give the mass its initial velocity, but in static equilibrium the static force (on M14 or M29) is zero. This is something like the chicken and the egg therefore the only possibility is that the movement was there from the very first beginning. This movement should be very slow and therefore can be approached as being constant (linear), but that means that the total force on the block is still zero. It will be a complex/impossible job to determine the force as function of a slowly toppling block, what I understand from N-F is that this is a little bit what the official theory tries to describe. The problem now is that if you look at a high resolution video of the North tower’s block (M14=antenna) there is indeed a toppling block but it is no movement that takes an hour or something. It is still something that happens in a fraction of a second. Further I’m also curious what happened about 10 seconds before collapse initiation. In the past I’ve had discussions at JREF about a camera that shakes, their debunk was that someone hits the tripod of that camera, but I don’t believe that because you also see a piece of debris falling out that impact zone at the same moment and why would someone hit a fixed camera just before the collapse? Something very major happened a couple of seconds before collapse initiation. My own idea is that something happened with the core but I’ve never seen a good explanation about these shakings…Anyone here ever thought about these shakings ?
1) Dr Frank Greening is presently perfecting his recipe on "intelligent fruit crumble creation" and preparing to back Grumpy's statement , thus showing that Professor Steven Jones lied when he said the regulatory codes were not met....
2) The reason Dr Greening is getting ready to publicly call Professor Steven Jones a liar is because NOT ONE of you OCTers challenged Grumpy's assertion that thermate-sniffing chihauhas met the code compliance parameters THEREFORE grumpy must be telling the truth...
...even though it would have been the first time in the history of the world that dogs were brought in to adhere to regulatory code compliance( BOW - WOW spectographic analysis using the WOOF- WOOF calibration standard).
3) Also you OCTers would have been THE FIRST TO demand "intellectual honesty" of fellow OCTers... so Dr Greening can be sure that Andrew Card was whispering into Bush's ear, ....
"Mr President...that was not the first plane you saw striking a WTC tower from a television that was OBVIOUSLY ON with the volume that was OBVIOUSLY OFF in a school....
... where the school's principal said you saw no TV prior to being whisked away and entering the classroom....
.....also, Mr president, that was not a Cessna we all saw---it was a much larger 757, sir..... Mr. President! America is under attack from two terrible pilots"
4) Dr Frank Greening is also digging up the hyperlink to where he responded to Gordon Ross's critique of his analysis(both publlished in the journal of 911 studies)
5) Dr Frank Greening is also preparing an answer to the "appear to be partially- vaporated steel " members.
Steel is not subject to "sublimation" that dry ice is(converting from "solid" to "gas" without first going through a "liquid" state)
Of necessity then...the terminal portions of those steel members mistakenly thought to have been "evaporated" would have been "molten" upon exeeding 2700 degrees Fahrenheit and then subsequently cooled when temps dropped below 2700 degrees...
We can toss out the temps needed to achieve "evaporation"...we'll restrict discussion to the 2700 degree temperatures which would have produce the molten temperature portions at the terminal ends where the mistake of "partially-evaporated steel" members were thought to have occurred.
2700 degrees Fahrenheit.... nothing in WTC 7 burned near that hot.
6) The 15 micron diameter "iron spheres" found in the WTC dust...
...are we moving from "intelligent thermite" production to "intelligent commercial-grade thermite" production...?
Dr Greening will tell us all as soon as he has finished his heaping, helping portion of "intelligent fruit crumble"
Chainsaw,
12th April 2007 - 10:56 PM
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Apr 12 2007, 09:40 PM)
Hello Chainsaw,
Did the government meet its responsibilities under the regulatory code to investigate thermite, in part, by bringing in dogs as Grumpy mainatins.
It must have ...otherwise you would have cahllenged the "intellectual dishonesty" demonstrated by your fellow OCTer.
Are you as "intellectually honest" as Grumpy has shown himself to be?
I'm asking becuase I'm beginning to doubt those 45 degree cuts don't "clearly" show what you "clearly" said they "clearly" did.
Anyhow, you have not challenged Grumpy's contention that the government met its responsibilities under the code...
...since Dr. Greening has spoken on the phone to Professor Jones....he should publicly call Jones a liar.... using Grumpy's rationale...and Greening should back it with the full force of his professional reputation--- I mean why not?--- NOT ONE OF YOU physorg forum members challenged Grumpy when he made that assertion --- so obviously Jones is a liar.
Ditto! with Adoucette's contention that Andrew Card whispered into Bush's ear---NOT ONE OF YOU OCTers challenged this display of "intellectual dishonesty"...
...only SINCE NOT ONE of you challenged it THEN BY EXTENSION Dr. Greening should have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM agreeing publicly and backing it with the full force of his professional reputation...
...but first, let's see him call Professor Jones a liar on not meeting the fire code motif.
They found several instances of oxidized aluminum, but the buildings and the planes were made from aluminum.
No detonation sample was ever obtained to my knowledge because of the situations involved in the collapse, looking for thermite would be like looking for a drop of salt water in the ocean.
It would be almost impossible not to find it, from the natural conditions present it is a red herring and just how would thermite survive the impact of the planes into the beam it would have had to be bolted on.
Also how does RDX work when it begins degrade and fizzles out at 170c, How do trinitrotoluenes survive also since the detonation of those compounds is also likely.
The thermite Idea is worse than the Space beam weapon in my opinion.
You want to propose a cognitive theory of the collapses I am ready to hear it!
So far NIST is the only cognitive theory although I do have similar reservations as DR. greening does.
PS. bring a simular beam, and one of these I will pick up some more oxygen and I will show you what I said is true.
I have the holder, and the Oxygen tank just need the lance and have to go get the oxygen from airgas co.
http://www.thermolance.com/Thermolance_Oxy...xygen_lance.htmWhat would you do cut the beam strait and drop it on your head?
On second thought that might not be a bad idea nothing up there anyway.
Chainsaw,
12th April 2007 - 11:22 PM
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Apr 12 2007, 10:04 PM)
1) Dr Frank Greening is presently perfecting his recipe on "intelligent fruit crumble creation" and preparing to back Grumpy's statement , thus showing that Professor Steven Jones lied when he said the regulatory codes were not met....
2) The reason Dr Greening is getting ready to publicly call Professor Steven Jones a liar is because NOT ONE of you OCTers challenged Grumpy's assertion that thermate-sniffing chihauhas met the code compliance parameters THEREFORE grumpy must be telling the truth...
...even though it would have been the first time in the history of the world that dogs were brought in to adhere to regulatory code compliance( BOW - WOW spectographic analysis using the WOOF- WOOF calibration standard).
3) Also you OCTers would have been THE FIRST TO demand "intellectual honesty" of fellow OCTers... so Dr Greening can be sure that Andrew Card was whispering into Bush's ear, ....
"Mr President...that was not the first plane you saw striking a WTC tower
from a television that was OBVIOUSLY ON with the volume that was OBVIOUSLY OFF in a school....
... where the school's principal
said you saw no TV prior to being whisked away and entering the classroom.........also, Mr president, that was not a Cessna we all saw---it was a much larger 757, sir..... Mr. President! America is under attack from two terrible pilots"
4) Dr Frank Greening is also digging up the hyperlink to where he responded to Gordon Ross's critique of his analysis(both publlished in the journal of 911 studies)
5) Dr Frank Greening is also preparing an answer to the "appear to be partially- vaporated steel " members.
Steel is not subject to "sublimation" that dry ice is(converting from "solid" to "gas" without first going through a "liquid" state)
Of necessity then...the terminal portions of those steel members mistakenly thought to have been "evaporated" would have been "molten" upon exeeding 2700 degrees Fahrenheit and then subsequently cooled when temps dropped below 2700 degrees...
We can toss out the temps needed to achieve "evaporation"...we'll restrict discussion to the 2700 degree temperatures which would have produce the molten temperature portions at the terminal ends where the mistake of "partially-evaporated steel" members were thought to have occurred.
2700 degrees Fahrenheit.... nothing in WTC 7 burned near that hot.
6) The 15 micron diameter "iron spheres" found in the WTC dust...
...are we moving from
"intelligent thermite" production to
"intelligent commercial-grade thermite" production...?Dr Greening will tell us all as soon as he has finished his heaping, helping portion of "intelligent fruit crumble"
2700 degrees Fahrenheit.... nothing in WTC 7 burned near that hot.
Now your making me laugh Dr. Jones and I have had a phone conversation ourselves.
Sulfidication of steel is not evidence of thermite, it is evidence of sulfur, most likely sulfuric acid, and it action on metal means hydrogen is produced.
Wonder if Dr. Jones remembers our little conversation on a hydrogen reaction igniting the intense layer of carbon black that would have formed, that would have disrupted the oxide layer on any molten aluminum in the building and that would have caused an aluminum oxidizing reaction like the one I just did.
At 2800C. HA!
Idiots on the INTERNET priceless!
quicknthedead
13th April 2007 - 01:28 AM
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 12 2007, 11:01 AM)
QUOTE
(einsteen @ Apr 12 2007, 03:22 PM)
In the past I’ve had discussions at JREF about a camera that shakes, their debunk was that someone hits the tripod of that camera, but I don’t believe that because you also see a piece of debris falling out that impact zone at the same moment and why would someone hit a fixed camera just before the collapse? Something very major happened a couple of seconds before collapse initiation. My own idea is that something happened with the core but I’ve never seen a good explanation about these shakings…Anyone here ever thought about these shakings ?
Einsteen, are you referring to these examples of ground shaking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrPpkuw8qrohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=28...shake+wtc&hl=enThese are two identical videos, only the second one has had the audio edited to include a narration and some sounds of "thunder" for added effect. Notice no thunder in the first video. In either case the shaking of the image, or the thunder of the audio could easily be the result of a gust of wind, turbulence from a passing vehicle, or operator induced motions.
The sound added to the second video is taken from the video "9/11 Eyewitness" and is not "thunder". (The OCTs only wish it were.)
Here is the scientific sound analysis from "9/11 Eyewitness" of these explosions.
Go to the
44-minute 25-second mark; the segment is approximately 15 minutes long:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...1+Eyewitness%22The explosions are
prime facie evidence of controlled demolition of the North Tower due to the intensity and timing of their occurrences.
And 9/11 WAS an inside job.
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.