QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 12 2007, 08:28 PM)
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%22
The 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.
Now Craig shows up with AUDIO as his only evidence.
Talk about DESPERATE.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 12 2007, 07:39 PM)
Now Craig shows up with AUDIO as his only evidence.
Talk about DESPERATE.
Arthur
Only evidence? Dream on.
But what specifically do you have to refute the evidence in the 15 minutes?
(And don't say, "The wind."
)
C'mon, let's see you OCTs refute the evidence.
Or is the best you can do is nothing?
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%22
The explosions are prime facie evidence of controlled demolition of the North Tower due to the intensity and timing of their occurrences.
Or are you the ones getting desperate?
You boys ain't addressed this EVER.
Oh, wait...I forgot. You think it's the wind!
C'mon, let's hear the "physics" on this. Refute it with FACTS, not your usual "hot air".
Or is the best you can do is nothing?
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%22
The explosions are prime facie evidence of controlled demolition of the North Tower due to the intensity and timing of their occurrences.
Or are you the ones getting desperate?
You boys ain't addressed this EVER.
Oh, wait...I forgot. You think it's the wind!
C'mon, let's hear the "physics" on this. Refute it with FACTS, not your usual "hot air".
Let’s see if anyone besides NISTians take the NIST report seriously (implementation of the recommendations).
Of the 18 recommendations, guess how many were implemented without change?
ONE, That’s right, 1 code change without modification out of 18. Or a WHOPPING 5.5 %.
Then, three were approved with modifications because they already were implemented as part of the existing codes.
So, what structural engineer would waste his time reading a 10,000 page report for one code change:
Of the 18 recommendations, guess how many were implemented without change?
ONE, That’s right, 1 code change without modification out of 18. Or a WHOPPING 5.5 %.
Then, three were approved with modifications because they already were implemented as part of the existing codes.
So, what structural engineer would waste his time reading a 10,000 page report for one code change:
Structural Frame Approach to Fire Resistance Ratings FS98 (IBC) - Structural frame rating.
Would modify the code's language as to which part of the building is to be considered the structural frame for determining fire resistance rating requirements. This will make it more visible to code users and easier to understand. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 7 of the NIST report.
Approved as Submitted - This change deals with concerns that the structural frame needs to be better defined in order for the level of fire protection to be easier to determine. This revision helps reinforce and distinguish the differences between the primary and secondary structural elements.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/CodeChangeProposals.htm
WOW, modifying the code's language as to which part of the building is to be considered the structural frame for determining fire resistance rating requirements.
That is the 20 million dollar recommendation from NIST!!!!!!!!
QUOTE
ICC Code Change Proposals
The International Code Council held its 2006 Code Development Hearings in Orlando, Florida, Sept. 20-Oct. 1. During this time, more than 2,200 proposed code changes to the family of 2006 International Codes were debated in an open forum and acted upon by ICC code development committees. Of these code changes, 18 were identified by the proponents as related to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) World Trade Center Investigation and the report entitled "Final Report of the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers." This report included 30 specific recommendations, not all of which are building or fire code related.
The International Code Council held its 2006 Code Development Hearings in Orlando, Florida, Sept. 20-Oct. 1. During this time, more than 2,200 proposed code changes to the family of 2006 International Codes were debated in an open forum and acted upon by ICC code development committees. Of these code changes, 18 were identified by the proponents as related to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) World Trade Center Investigation and the report entitled "Final Report of the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers." This report included 30 specific recommendations, not all of which are building or fire code related.
Of the 18 recommendations, guess how many were implemented without change?
ONE, That’s right, 1 code change without modification out of 18. Or a WHOPPING 5.5 %.
Then, three were approved with modifications because they already were implemented as part of the existing codes.
So, what structural engineer would waste his time reading a 10,000 page report for one code change:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ICC Code Change Proposals The International Code Council held its 2006 Code Development Hearings in Orlando, Florida, Sept. 20-Oct. 1. During this time, more than 2,200 proposed code changes to the family of 2006 International Codes were debated in an open forum and acted upon by ICC code development committees. Of these code changes, 18 were identified by the proponents as related to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) World Trade Center Investigation and the report entitled "Final Report of the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers." This report included 30 specific recommendations, not all of which are building or fire code related. |
Of the 18 recommendations, guess how many were implemented without change?
ONE, That’s right, 1 code change without modification out of 18. Or a WHOPPING 5.5 %.
Then, three were approved with modifications because they already were implemented as part of the existing codes.
So, what structural engineer would waste his time reading a 10,000 page report for one code change:
Structural Frame Approach to Fire Resistance Ratings FS98 (IBC) - Structural frame rating.
Would modify the code's language as to which part of the building is to be considered the structural frame for determining fire resistance rating requirements. This will make it more visible to code users and easier to understand. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 7 of the NIST report.
Approved as Submitted - This change deals with concerns that the structural frame needs to be better defined in order for the level of fire protection to be easier to determine. This revision helps reinforce and distinguish the differences between the primary and secondary structural elements.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/CodeChangeProposals.htm
WOW, modifying the code's language as to which part of the building is to be considered the structural frame for determining fire resistance rating requirements.
That is the 20 million dollar recommendation from NIST!!!!!!!!
Oh yeah, I forgot your Seismic Evidence.
Do you REALLY think anyone with an ounce of sense is going to take 15 minutes out of their life to listen to a video that YOU are sponsering?
With YOUR track record?
Not likely.
Craig, you REALLY need to GET A LIFE.
Arthur
Do you REALLY think anyone with an ounce of sense is going to take 15 minutes out of their life to listen to a video that YOU are sponsering?
With YOUR track record?
Not likely.
Craig, you REALLY need to GET A LIFE.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 12 2007, 08:56 PM)
Oh yeah, I forgot your Seismic Evidence.
Do you REALLY think anyone with an ounce of sense is going to take 15 minutes out of their life to listen to a video that YOU are sponsering?
With YOUR track record?
Not likely.
Craig, you REALLY need to GET A LIFE.
Arthur
You are all mouth, adoucette, and you're not delivering.
The best you can do is try to deflect the question by attacking me or another piece of evidence. You're a laugh.
You can't handle the message / the question.
Hot air and wind seems to be your forte, as always.
YOU CAN'T ADDRESS THE QUESTION, "MR PHYSICS".
Is it because you're all show? Yup -- you are a joke.
You never deal with real evidence that shows 9/11 WAS an inside job. You can't because you are a shill.
(Nothing personal, just the facts, man, just the facts.)
Anyone else care to try and refute this?
Go to the 44-minute 25-second mark; the segment is approximately 15 minutes long:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...1+Eyewitness%22
The explosions are prime facie evidence of controlled demolition of the North Tower due to the intensity and timing of their occurrences.
I don't think you can; the OCT is a serious joke and you are its court jesters.
AND NO ONE ON THIS FORUM HAS REFUTED THIS EVIDENCE, EITHER.
You boys just can't handle facts or the truth -- pitiful...
And 9/11 WAS an inside job.
Do you REALLY think anyone with an ounce of sense is going to take 15 minutes out of their life to listen to a video that YOU are sponsering?
With YOUR track record?
Not likely.
Craig, you REALLY need to GET A LIFE.
Arthur
You are all mouth, adoucette, and you're not delivering.
The best you can do is try to deflect the question by attacking me or another piece of evidence. You're a laugh.
You can't handle the message / the question.
Hot air and wind seems to be your forte, as always.
YOU CAN'T ADDRESS THE QUESTION, "MR PHYSICS".
Is it because you're all show? Yup -- you are a joke.
You never deal with real evidence that shows 9/11 WAS an inside job. You can't because you are a shill.
(Nothing personal, just the facts, man, just the facts.)
Anyone else care to try and refute this?
Go to the 44-minute 25-second mark; the segment is approximately 15 minutes long:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...1+Eyewitness%22
The explosions are prime facie evidence of controlled demolition of the North Tower due to the intensity and timing of their occurrences.
I don't think you can; the OCT is a serious joke and you are its court jesters.
AND NO ONE ON THIS FORUM HAS REFUTED THIS EVIDENCE, EITHER.
You boys just can't handle facts or the truth -- pitiful...
And 9/11 WAS an inside job.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 12 2007, 10:53 PM)
Let’s see if anyone besides NISTians take the NIST report seriously (implementation of the recommendations).
Of the 18 recommendations, guess how many were implemented without change?
ONE, That’s right, 1 code change without modification out of 18. Or a WHOPPING 5.5 %.
Then, three were approved with modifications because they already were implemented as part of the existing codes.
So, what structural engineer would waste his time reading a 10,000 page report for one code change:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/CodeChangeProposals.htm
WOW, modifying the code's language as to which part of the building is to be considered the structural frame for determining fire resistance rating requirements.
That is the 20 million dollar recommendation from NIST!!!!!!!!
What BS.
First there were 4 recommendations that got approved. 1 as submitted, 3 as modified.
The modifications didn't mean they were already implemented, what it means is they were good recommendations, just that the wording needed to be changed a bit.
EXAMPLE
FS100 (IBC) - Sprayed fire resistant materials - application. Would add new text to require that spray fireproofing materials must be installed in accordance with the listing requirements for the fireproofing material. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 6 of the NIST report.
Approved as Modified - This proposal provides enforceable language to assure compliance with code requirements. This helps to address the concern that testing of the adhesion properties must be indicative of the actual in-place conditions. Often, the testing is based on unprimed steel but the actual field installation is done to steel with primers, therefore possibly affecting the adhesion. This proposal includes the provisions directly in the code for easy access and identification by the inspector. The testimony did clarify that the size limitations (Section 714.8.3.2 items 1, 2, and 3) do not limit the size of members which may use SFRM, but instead only limits the size of members for which this section is applicable. All other sizes would be required to comply with their listing.
The Disapprovals that DID occur are NOT FINAL, most simply meant that the proposal had to be reworked to take in other considerations. They will be reworked and submitted again. In other cases, more work needed to be done to support the proposal. Note this meeting happened in Sept 2006.
EXAMPLES:
G72 (IBC) - Exit remoteness. The purpose of this proposal is to require stair shafts to meet more restrictive remoteness criteria - locating the stair shafts as far apart in order to minimize the potential for a single fire event to render both stairs unusable. Stairs would have to be separated one-half of the diagonal distance of the floor if there are two stairways or at least one-third if there are three or more stairways. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 18 of the NIST report.
Disapproved - The committee felt that a comprehensive review and consequence analysis of the NIST report was not yet complete, therefore this proposal was premature. The term 'structural bay' was not defined. The standard 'structural bay' is not used in high rise construction. Justification was not provided for the significant change for the additional separation of exits, especially if the additional stairway in G71 is also required. The 1/2 of the diagonal dimension, in a standard plan with three or more stairways, would force the stairway enclosure to be located outside of the building footprint. An analysis of the architectural and engineering impact of this change must be performed
G69 (IBC) - Building burnout survivability. Would require that buildings greater than 420 feet in height be analyzed and designed to survive a building contents fire without collapse. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 8 of the NIST report.
Disapproved - This proposal was intended to better understand the affect of a building contents fire on the structural integrity of a high rise. Concerns stemmed from a partial reference to the ICC Performance Code within the IBC. The committee felt it needed to be a broader reference or not referenced at all. There was also concern with how the design fire would be determined and how the assumed fire dynamics would be evaluated by the authority having jurisdiction.
Finally, one of the proposals was disapproved by the Committee but the Assembly over-rode the committee and put it on the Action Agenda
G63 (IBC) - Fire service elevator. Would require a minimum of one fire service elevator in buildings 120 feet or higher. The proposal will provide a reasonable degree of safety for firefighters operating the fire service access elevator to a location for staging firefighters and equipment one or two floors below the fire. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 21 of the NIST report.
Disapproved: Assembly action: As Submitted - In general, the committee was in favor of the proposal but disapproved the code change based on a variety of issues that need to be addressed: Concern with terminology which currently references a "building stair" instead of an "exit enclosure." Other concerns related to the standard reference to NEMA SB30 and the size of the elevator lobby.
The ICC process allows for those in the assembly to voice their views on the committee's action in the form of an assembly action where the ICC members vote on the code change. Consideration of this code change included a motion for assembly action for "As Submitted" that was successful. A successful assembly action results in an automatic public comment and therefore this item is automatically placed on the ICC Final Action Agenda.
Reasonwhy wants to paint the NIST as ineffectual, but CLEARLY they are not.
Arthur
Of the 18 recommendations, guess how many were implemented without change?
ONE, That’s right, 1 code change without modification out of 18. Or a WHOPPING 5.5 %.
Then, three were approved with modifications because they already were implemented as part of the existing codes.
So, what structural engineer would waste his time reading a 10,000 page report for one code change:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/CodeChangeProposals.htm
WOW, modifying the code's language as to which part of the building is to be considered the structural frame for determining fire resistance rating requirements.
That is the 20 million dollar recommendation from NIST!!!!!!!!
What BS.
First there were 4 recommendations that got approved. 1 as submitted, 3 as modified.
The modifications didn't mean they were already implemented, what it means is they were good recommendations, just that the wording needed to be changed a bit.
EXAMPLE
FS100 (IBC) - Sprayed fire resistant materials - application. Would add new text to require that spray fireproofing materials must be installed in accordance with the listing requirements for the fireproofing material. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 6 of the NIST report.
Approved as Modified - This proposal provides enforceable language to assure compliance with code requirements. This helps to address the concern that testing of the adhesion properties must be indicative of the actual in-place conditions. Often, the testing is based on unprimed steel but the actual field installation is done to steel with primers, therefore possibly affecting the adhesion. This proposal includes the provisions directly in the code for easy access and identification by the inspector. The testimony did clarify that the size limitations (Section 714.8.3.2 items 1, 2, and 3) do not limit the size of members which may use SFRM, but instead only limits the size of members for which this section is applicable. All other sizes would be required to comply with their listing.
The Disapprovals that DID occur are NOT FINAL, most simply meant that the proposal had to be reworked to take in other considerations. They will be reworked and submitted again. In other cases, more work needed to be done to support the proposal. Note this meeting happened in Sept 2006.
EXAMPLES:
G72 (IBC) - Exit remoteness. The purpose of this proposal is to require stair shafts to meet more restrictive remoteness criteria - locating the stair shafts as far apart in order to minimize the potential for a single fire event to render both stairs unusable. Stairs would have to be separated one-half of the diagonal distance of the floor if there are two stairways or at least one-third if there are three or more stairways. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 18 of the NIST report.
Disapproved - The committee felt that a comprehensive review and consequence analysis of the NIST report was not yet complete, therefore this proposal was premature. The term 'structural bay' was not defined. The standard 'structural bay' is not used in high rise construction. Justification was not provided for the significant change for the additional separation of exits, especially if the additional stairway in G71 is also required. The 1/2 of the diagonal dimension, in a standard plan with three or more stairways, would force the stairway enclosure to be located outside of the building footprint. An analysis of the architectural and engineering impact of this change must be performed
G69 (IBC) - Building burnout survivability. Would require that buildings greater than 420 feet in height be analyzed and designed to survive a building contents fire without collapse. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 8 of the NIST report.
Disapproved - This proposal was intended to better understand the affect of a building contents fire on the structural integrity of a high rise. Concerns stemmed from a partial reference to the ICC Performance Code within the IBC. The committee felt it needed to be a broader reference or not referenced at all. There was also concern with how the design fire would be determined and how the assumed fire dynamics would be evaluated by the authority having jurisdiction.
Finally, one of the proposals was disapproved by the Committee but the Assembly over-rode the committee and put it on the Action Agenda
G63 (IBC) - Fire service elevator. Would require a minimum of one fire service elevator in buildings 120 feet or higher. The proposal will provide a reasonable degree of safety for firefighters operating the fire service access elevator to a location for staging firefighters and equipment one or two floors below the fire. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 21 of the NIST report.
Disapproved: Assembly action: As Submitted - In general, the committee was in favor of the proposal but disapproved the code change based on a variety of issues that need to be addressed: Concern with terminology which currently references a "building stair" instead of an "exit enclosure." Other concerns related to the standard reference to NEMA SB30 and the size of the elevator lobby.
The ICC process allows for those in the assembly to voice their views on the committee's action in the form of an assembly action where the ICC members vote on the code change. Consideration of this code change included a motion for assembly action for "As Submitted" that was successful. A successful assembly action results in an automatic public comment and therefore this item is automatically placed on the ICC Final Action Agenda.
Reasonwhy wants to paint the NIST as ineffectual, but CLEARLY they are not.
Arthur
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 12 2007, 11:26 PM)
You are all mouth, adoucette, and you're not delivering.
The best you can do is try to deflect the question by attacking me or another piece of evidence. You're a laugh.
You can't handle the message / the question.
Hot air and wind seems to be your forte, as always.
YOU CAN'T ADDRESS THE QUESTION, "MR PHYSICS".
Is it because you're all show? Yup -- you are a joke.
You never deal with real evidence that shows 9/11 WAS an inside job. You can't because you are a shill.
(Nothing personal, just the facts, man, just the facts.)
Nope, not going to waste my time on you again.
We heard similar BS from you before remember?
The best you can do is try to deflect the question by attacking me or another piece of evidence. You're a laugh.
You can't handle the message / the question.
Hot air and wind seems to be your forte, as always.
YOU CAN'T ADDRESS THE QUESTION, "MR PHYSICS".
Is it because you're all show? Yup -- you are a joke.
You never deal with real evidence that shows 9/11 WAS an inside job. You can't because you are a shill.
(Nothing personal, just the facts, man, just the facts.)
Nope, not going to waste my time on you again.
We heard similar BS from you before remember?
QUOTE (CraigTFurlong+)
For once and for all, the Pavel Hlava video is based in fraud.
The story behind the video purports it was done by civilians in an SUV, but the reflection off the window in front of the vehicle proves it was an emergency fire vehicle.
Arthur
The story behind the video purports it was done by civilians in an SUV, but the reflection off the window in front of the vehicle proves it was an emergency fire vehicle.
Arthur
notsoquick
On this forum anything further that YOU post is automatically deemed as valid as the firetruck reflection in the back window of a BMW. The sounds on your tape are FAKED, a FRAUD, BOGUS and are simply meant to DECIEVE just like the paper you wrote claiming explosions prior to the aircraft impacts. You are a disinformation agent and every word you post is seen as false. For whatever reason you are dedicated to shifting the blame for 911 from the fundamentalist nutjob barbarians where it belongs, to innocent and loyal Americans. It just ain't right.
Grumpy
On this forum anything further that YOU post is automatically deemed as valid as the firetruck reflection in the back window of a BMW. The sounds on your tape are FAKED, a FRAUD, BOGUS and are simply meant to DECIEVE just like the paper you wrote claiming explosions prior to the aircraft impacts. You are a disinformation agent and every word you post is seen as false. For whatever reason you are dedicated to shifting the blame for 911 from the fundamentalist nutjob barbarians where it belongs, to innocent and loyal Americans. It just ain't right.
Grumpy
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 13 2007, 01:28 AM)
QUOTE (Capracus+ Apr 12 2007, 11:01 AM)
Einsteen, are you referring to these examples of ground shaking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrPpkuw8qro
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=28...shake+wtc&hl=en
These 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%22
The 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.
Craig, here are some observations on your prime facie evidence of controlled demolition of the North Tower. In this latest presentation of your's, the video footage of the collapse of the north tower is shot from two miles away, from Hoboken NJ. The location of the reporter describing the event was given as somewhere on the Manhattan Bridge, possibly up to a mile and a half away, across the Hudson River. It's not clear which location the audio of the "thunder" originates.
Here is a condensed version of the analysis from your original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAKfBA8lBYg
In this analysis, they claim that the first "thunder clap" can be heard 17 seconds before the collapse. For comparison, here is a 26 minute video of both collapses shot at a distance of about a third of a mile:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=20...+collapse&hl=en
At 19:38, the collapse of the north tower begins. You can go back a minute and listen all the way up to the collapse, and not a hint of thunder, or a mention of it by the camera operators.
Now for some deja vu. Which account is most factual? The one across the bay in New Jersey? The one across the river in Brooklyn? Or, the one across the street from ground zero?
Well OK then, fair enough. But just for purposes of discussion:
HIDE the fact: weren't there entire vacant floors in both Towers which were essentially locked off for renovation? a reported power down the week prior to 9/11, and the removal of all bomb sniffing dogs the week before?
protection from fire and impact: why would pre-planted devices need to be in the impact area if their role was to compromise the core? Severing, or heavily damage the core anywhere should be sufficient.
NORMAL techniques - what's wrong with "un-normal" techniques? remote detonation via say a call to a cell phone used as a trigger device? No need for Det cord or the rest of normal, standard, professional techniques.
And I'm still puzzled by the characteristics of WTC 7's rubble pile. How do all the columns well away from impact damage and fires manage to fail at the same time as the damaged areas? What is the force/mechanism which causes totally undamaged areas to fail at the same exact time as heavily damaged areas?
That’s fine and dandy, but this is more of an engineering problem than physics.
You have completely ignored the interdependence of the various components of the structure.
A tree is not hollow.
A tree trunk is not dependent on its branches for its lateral stability.
The ability of the building to support itself is dependent on ALL of its structural elements, especially so with the WTC towers.
So what happens to the core of the building once the floor slabs are stripped away? Without the lateral stability provided by those slabs, would the core have been capable of standing on its own even without the random lateral forces imparted to it by the collapse?
You seem to be implying that the core could have supported the entire weight of the top of the structure even though the core was damaged by the airplane impact.
Once a floor began to collapse, how could the core have been able to "receive" the loads of the falling mass?
These are engineering problems, not physics. however, if you don’t address them, your paper has no practical meaning.
Let us know how that works out for you m’kay?
Hi palpatine,
and thank you for your reply. In physics like in anything else you have to first talk the talk (a.k.a. introduction) before you walk the walk (do the real job).
Ho, ho, ho, .. cherry three is a parody on "pancaking" and pancakes and representing the buildings in their form.
If we talk about the building than cherry three, because of its density, is definitely not the best structure to collapse unto itself, like the WTC's did.
Current "theory" about the collapse as you might now is based on two approaches, one-dimensional models like mine, and some finite element modeling (outsourced by NIST according to their report).
If you agree to observe the building as a homogeneous cake (lots of internal voids, so that, structure may collapse into small compacted heap on the ground) than you agree on a length scale of approximately one floor in height.
The problem with WTC's as I point out in my report is the time in which it collapsed. Even the mechanism you suggest:
1. avalanche destroys the floor slabs and severes them from perimeter columns
2. the core cannot stand that and disintegrates
3. avalanche propagates forward by consuming the core that has just disintegrated (and
also acquired necessary velocity to participate in the avalanche)
ANYBODY CARES ABOUT DYNAMIC FICTION FORCE?
there are two sides to interaction of avalanche and the building: first, you break the piece of the
building (latent energy, as represented by the reaction force, see Bazant or mine paper) then you accelerate that chunk to the same velocity that the avalanche front has.
Problems:
1. duration of collapse - above mechanism takes long time and is inefficient - you are pulling building apart as you progress. Recall: the building was compressed to ground zero.
2. core can stand on its own. the load bearing of the building was divided between the core and the perimeter columns: roughly 1/4 to 3/4. Safety factor is about 2. Thus core can carry 1.5 times the building.
3. additional safety. You recall that building was designed to withstand impact by Boeing 707? If we neglect heat damage there are two components to mechanical damage that had to be dealt with: kinetic energy of impact (small, 1 Gcals, giga calorie, a.k.a. 1 tonne of TNT), and
severing the perimeter columns over the wingspan (worst case scenario).
Now the building had three separated sections, with extra floor support at them, like tables from which the next section was built. So, the maximum load on the building is that the perimeter columns hang on that side of the building from that floor. And they said that the building would not collapse in that case.
Comment regarding the floor collapse and the cherry tree: watch Rambo jumping down the cliff and gets stopped by breaking the branches of the tree. The floors act like semi-permeable membranes. Biggest chunks fly through while the rest gets slowed down. The avalanche front looses its planar aspect and disperses and there goes one-dimensional model of the avalanche through the window. Even Bazant's one. Mine too.
That one-dimensional model works so good in this case is the disturbing factor.
More disturbing is that the parameters that enter that model are so low.
Different authors fudge that in different way. I just refused to do any fudging and just stated what they have to be in order for building to collapse and how low these values are. If you have problem with that, tough luck.
Go ask Bazant what are the values of these parameters in his model, and then ask NIST why don't they embrace Bazant's finding. Two of them seem to cover all angles.
Finally, I am sorry that you have problem with conservation of energy. However, it is a physical fact that one-dimensional model of avalanche does not provide an explanation for where does "sudden" decrease in the reaction force provided by the structure come from.
This is, unfortunately, necessary for the collapse to happen in observed time.
Cheers,
cmb.-
That one-dimensional model works so good in this case is the disturbing factor. More disturbing is that the parameters that enter that model are so low. Different authors fudge that in different way. I just refused to do any fudging and just stated what they have to be in order for building to collapse and how low these values are. If you have problem with that, tough luck.
You're trying to use a resistive force during collapse that remains the same as the maximum resistive force based on a static load safety factor. You're not going to get a realistic answer that way. That will give an inflated value for the energy absorbed per story since it doesn't take into account failure mechanisms and the limited energy absorbing abilities of the structural components during their failures. That leads to bizarre conclusions, such as the initial damage region spanning 40 or more stories or explosives planted on every floor and set off in sequence to mimmick a gravity-driven collapse.
ABC video of the gash on the south facade shows what appears to be a progressive collapse of floor sections between the 4th and 5th columns. The damage started near the roof level by impacting debris from the north tower collapse. The gash further down is narrower and appears to be defined by the columns. That suggests that the falling debris struck the next floor section below it and collapsed it, which fell on the next section below it and collapsed it, and so on, all the way down.
If the impacting debris participated in creating the gash all the way down, the gash probably wouldn't be so well defined. It looks more like collapsing floor sections between two columns propagated the collapse most of the way down. That indicates that WTC7 wasn't very structurally robust. A similar collapse happened at Ronan apartment in the late 60s. A partial collapse also occurred on the east side of WTC7 a few seconds before the global collapse and apparently spanned the height of the building. The longest span floors were on the east side of the building. The collapse on the east side probably started in the area of the 11th and 12th stories where fires were burning and propagated up to the roof. The collapse on the east side also suggests that WTC7 wasn't structurally robust.
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%22
The 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.[/QUOTE]
Craig, here are some observations on your prime facie evidence of controlled demolition of the North Tower. In this latest presentation of your's, the video footage of the collapse of the north tower is shot from two miles away, from Hoboken NJ. The location of the reporter describing the event was given as somewhere on the Manhattan Bridge, possibly up to a mile and a half away, across the Hudson River. It's not clear which location the audio of the "thunder" originates.
Here is a condensed version of the analysis from your original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAKfBA8lBYg
In this analysis, they claim that the first "thunder clap" can be heard 17 seconds before the collapse. For comparison, here is a 26 minute video of both collapses shot at a distance of about a third of a mile:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=20...+collapse&hl=en
At 19:38, the collapse of the north tower begins. You can go back a minute and listen all the way up to the collapse, and not a hint of thunder, or a mention of it by the camera operators.
Now for some deja vu. Which account is most factual? The one across the bay in New Jersey? The one across the river in Brooklyn? Or, the one across the street from ground zero?
The two videos are shot at different distances from the tower, so the effects have different time intervals to travel to the cameras.
There is no sound to the first video, as far as I know. If you know of a copy with sound, please share it.
However, this does not matter to the point at hand.
The evidence of the explosion from the shaking of the camera in the first video is corroborated by the video and sound in the second.
They are both factual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrPpkuw8qro
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=28...shake+wtc&hl=en
These 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%22
The 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.
Craig, here are some observations on your prime facie evidence of controlled demolition of the North Tower. In this latest presentation of your's, the video footage of the collapse of the north tower is shot from two miles away, from Hoboken NJ. The location of the reporter describing the event was given as somewhere on the Manhattan Bridge, possibly up to a mile and a half away, across the Hudson River. It's not clear which location the audio of the "thunder" originates.
Here is a condensed version of the analysis from your original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAKfBA8lBYg
In this analysis, they claim that the first "thunder clap" can be heard 17 seconds before the collapse. For comparison, here is a 26 minute video of both collapses shot at a distance of about a third of a mile:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=20...+collapse&hl=en
At 19:38, the collapse of the north tower begins. You can go back a minute and listen all the way up to the collapse, and not a hint of thunder, or a mention of it by the camera operators.
Now for some deja vu. Which account is most factual? The one across the bay in New Jersey? The one across the river in Brooklyn? Or, the one across the street from ground zero?
I think we could come up with a rating system for CT'ers based on MEAN TIME BETWEEN DEBUNKING
The score would be in DAYS (or fractions of a day)
Someone like Kallme, who's posts are mainly SELF DEBUNKING would get a MTBD of .5 or less.
Someone like Craig would get maybe a MTBD of 1 or 2.
A decent CT'er (one who really TRIES) might actually get a MTBD into the 3s or 4s.
Just a thought.
Arthur
The score would be in DAYS (or fractions of a day)
Someone like Kallme, who's posts are mainly SELF DEBUNKING would get a MTBD of .5 or less.
Someone like Craig would get maybe a MTBD of 1 or 2.
A decent CT'er (one who really TRIES) might actually get a MTBD into the 3s or 4s.
Just a thought.
Arthur
Just a thought or two:
On the debate between CD and damage/gravity collapse - Seems there is a false comparison going on. The Towers and WTC 7 needn't to have been rigged to the degree and care it would take to do a professional level job, just well enough to ensure a collapse of some sort.
Saying that CD is out of the question because of the time and number of people it would have taken to set it up isn't a true comparison. I think you have to consider CD in the time, materials, & personnel it would have taken to do a quick-n-dirty version of a CD, not what it would have taken to do a top level - no error job.
Even so, I remain somewhat amazed at the characteristics of the rubble pile for WTC 7.
Yes, 30 West Broadway suffered some damage on the side closest to WTC 7, but from what I could find it appears its demolition was as much a factor of dust contamination as it was from the extent of physical damage. The fact is that the other three buildings closest to it: U.S. Post Office, Verizon, & Irving Trust were virtually untouched. Heck of a deal for 47 stories/570 feet of 47,000'sq. per floor worth of material dropping right across the street from them.
In studying photos of the rubble pile, it also appears that the facade fell away from the area where the huge gash was on the WTC 1 side. I realize buildings aren't trees, but common sense suggests that if you knock a huge section out of a building that its ensuing collapse would favor that direction. Yet there's the damaged side's facade lying at the very top of rubble pile. I find that to be at least somewhat curious.
On the debate between CD and damage/gravity collapse - Seems there is a false comparison going on. The Towers and WTC 7 needn't to have been rigged to the degree and care it would take to do a professional level job, just well enough to ensure a collapse of some sort.
Saying that CD is out of the question because of the time and number of people it would have taken to set it up isn't a true comparison. I think you have to consider CD in the time, materials, & personnel it would have taken to do a quick-n-dirty version of a CD, not what it would have taken to do a top level - no error job.
Even so, I remain somewhat amazed at the characteristics of the rubble pile for WTC 7.
Yes, 30 West Broadway suffered some damage on the side closest to WTC 7, but from what I could find it appears its demolition was as much a factor of dust contamination as it was from the extent of physical damage. The fact is that the other three buildings closest to it: U.S. Post Office, Verizon, & Irving Trust were virtually untouched. Heck of a deal for 47 stories/570 feet of 47,000'sq. per floor worth of material dropping right across the street from them.
In studying photos of the rubble pile, it also appears that the facade fell away from the area where the huge gash was on the WTC 1 side. I realize buildings aren't trees, but common sense suggests that if you knock a huge section out of a building that its ensuing collapse would favor that direction. Yet there's the damaged side's facade lying at the very top of rubble pile. I find that to be at least somewhat curious.
QUOTE (forthetrees+Apr 13 2007, 12:42 PM)
Just a thought or two:
On the debate between CD and damage/gravity collapse - Seems there is a false comparison going on. The Towers and WTC 7 needn't to have been rigged to the degree and care it would take to do a professional level job, just well enough to ensure a collapse of some sort.
Saying that CD is out of the question because of the time and number of people it would have taken to set it up isn't a true comparison. I think you have to consider CD in the time, materials, & personnel it would have taken to do a quick-n-dirty version of a CD, not what it would have taken to do a top level - no error job.
What would have taken so LONG would not be the professionalism of the result but the EXTRAORDINARY REQUIREMENT that they would have to HIDE the fact (from all the people and workers in the building (~ 100 elevator mechanics alone) that they were rigging THREE buildings with explosives while at the same time protecting them from FIRE AND IMPACT and that they would have to do it without being able to use almost ANY of their NORMAL techniques (no Det Cord, no pre-cutting of columns, minimal physical changes etc).
The fact is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL has EVER been presented that proves that CD had ANYTHING to do with the collapses.
Arthur
On the debate between CD and damage/gravity collapse - Seems there is a false comparison going on. The Towers and WTC 7 needn't to have been rigged to the degree and care it would take to do a professional level job, just well enough to ensure a collapse of some sort.
Saying that CD is out of the question because of the time and number of people it would have taken to set it up isn't a true comparison. I think you have to consider CD in the time, materials, & personnel it would have taken to do a quick-n-dirty version of a CD, not what it would have taken to do a top level - no error job.
What would have taken so LONG would not be the professionalism of the result but the EXTRAORDINARY REQUIREMENT that they would have to HIDE the fact (from all the people and workers in the building (~ 100 elevator mechanics alone) that they were rigging THREE buildings with explosives while at the same time protecting them from FIRE AND IMPACT and that they would have to do it without being able to use almost ANY of their NORMAL techniques (no Det Cord, no pre-cutting of columns, minimal physical changes etc).
The fact is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL has EVER been presented that proves that CD had ANYTHING to do with the collapses.
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 12 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...
and there were SEVERAL vacant floors at the twin towers.
they were not worried about collateral damage, in fact, they wanted shock'n'awe.
whole floors were DONATED to artists.
they were white asbestos elephants.
the 100 'elevator mechanics' planted the bombs, ok, arthur? that's why they didn't stick around and help out, after the planes hit.
and there were SEVERAL vacant floors at the twin towers.
they were not worried about collateral damage, in fact, they wanted shock'n'awe.
whole floors were DONATED to artists.
they were white asbestos elephants.
the 100 'elevator mechanics' planted the bombs, ok, arthur? that's why they didn't stick around and help out, after the planes hit.
QUOTE
...the EXTRAORDINARY REQUIREMENT that they would have to HIDE the fact (from all the people and workers in the building (~ 100 elevator mechanics alone) that they were rigging THREE buildings with explosives while at the same time protecting them from FIRE AND IMPACT and that they would have to do it without being able to use almost ANY of their NORMAL techniques (no Det Cord, no pre-cutting of columns, minimal physical changes etc).
Well OK then, fair enough. But just for purposes of discussion:
HIDE the fact: weren't there entire vacant floors in both Towers which were essentially locked off for renovation? a reported power down the week prior to 9/11, and the removal of all bomb sniffing dogs the week before?
protection from fire and impact: why would pre-planted devices need to be in the impact area if their role was to compromise the core? Severing, or heavily damage the core anywhere should be sufficient.
NORMAL techniques - what's wrong with "un-normal" techniques? remote detonation via say a call to a cell phone used as a trigger device? No need for Det cord or the rest of normal, standard, professional techniques.
And I'm still puzzled by the characteristics of WTC 7's rubble pile. How do all the columns well away from impact damage and fires manage to fail at the same time as the damaged areas? What is the force/mechanism which causes totally undamaged areas to fail at the same exact time as heavily damaged areas?
QUOTE (newton+Apr 13 2007, 01:55 PM)
the 100 'elevator mechanics' planted the bombs, ok, arthur? that's why they didn't stick around and help out, after the planes hit.
Just when I didn't think you could SINK any LOWER you go and prove what a COMPLETE JERK you are.
ES&D
Arthur
Just when I didn't think you could SINK any LOWER you go and prove what a COMPLETE JERK you are.
ES&D
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 13 2007, 07:10 PM)
Just when I didn't think you could SINK any LOWER you go and prove what a COMPLETE JERK you are.
ES&D
Arthur
oh. that hurts.
right back at ya.
ES&D
Arthur
oh. that hurts.
right back at ya.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 12 2007, 08:37 PM)
What BS.
First there were 4 recommendations that got approved. 1 as submitted, 3 as modified.
The modifications didn't mean they were already implemented, what it means is they were good recommendations, just that the wording needed to be changed a bit.
EXAMPLE
FS100 (IBC) - Sprayed fire resistant materials - application. Would add new text to require that spray fireproofing materials must be installed in accordance with the listing requirements for the fireproofing material. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 6 of the NIST report.
Approved as Modified - This proposal provides enforceable language to assure compliance with code requirements. This helps to address the concern that testing of the adhesion properties must be indicative of the actual in-place conditions. Often, the testing is based on unprimed steel but the actual field installation is done to steel with primers, therefore possibly affecting the adhesion. This proposal includes the provisions directly in the code for easy access and identification by the inspector. The testimony did clarify that the size limitations (Section 714.8.3.2 items 1, 2, and 3) do not limit the size of members which may use SFRM, but instead only limits the size of members for which this section is applicable. All other sizes would be required to comply with their listing.
The Disapprovals that DID occur are NOT FINAL, most simply meant that the proposal had to be reworked to take in other considerations. They will be reworked and submitted again. In other cases, more work needed to be done to support the proposal. Note this meeting happened in Sept 2006.
EXAMPLES:
G72 (IBC) - Exit remoteness. The purpose of this proposal is to require stair shafts to meet more restrictive remoteness criteria - locating the stair shafts as far apart in order to minimize the potential for a single fire event to render both stairs unusable. Stairs would have to be separated one-half of the diagonal distance of the floor if there are two stairways or at least one-third if there are three or more stairways. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 18 of the NIST report.
Disapproved - The committee felt that a comprehensive review and consequence analysis of the NIST report was not yet complete, therefore this proposal was premature. The term 'structural bay' was not defined. The standard 'structural bay' is not used in high rise construction. Justification was not provided for the significant change for the additional separation of exits, especially if the additional stairway in G71 is also required. The 1/2 of the diagonal dimension, in a standard plan with three or more stairways, would force the stairway enclosure to be located outside of the building footprint. An analysis of the architectural and engineering impact of this change must be performed
G69 (IBC) - Building burnout survivability. Would require that buildings greater than 420 feet in height be analyzed and designed to survive a building contents fire without collapse. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 8 of the NIST report.
Disapproved - This proposal was intended to better understand the affect of a building contents fire on the structural integrity of a high rise. Concerns stemmed from a partial reference to the ICC Performance Code within the IBC. The committee felt it needed to be a broader reference or not referenced at all. There was also concern with how the design fire would be determined and how the assumed fire dynamics would be evaluated by the authority having jurisdiction.
Finally, one of the proposals was disapproved by the Committee but the Assembly over-rode the committee and put it on the Action Agenda
G63 (IBC) - Fire service elevator. Would require a minimum of one fire service elevator in buildings 120 feet or higher. The proposal will provide a reasonable degree of safety for firefighters operating the fire service access elevator to a location for staging firefighters and equipment one or two floors below the fire. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 21 of the NIST report.
Disapproved: Assembly action: As Submitted - In general, the committee was in favor of the proposal but disapproved the code change based on a variety of issues that need to be addressed: Concern with terminology which currently references a "building stair" instead of an "exit enclosure." Other concerns related to the standard reference to NEMA SB30 and the size of the elevator lobby.
The ICC process allows for those in the assembly to voice their views on the committee's action in the form of an assembly action where the ICC members vote on the code change. Consideration of this code change included a motion for assembly action for "As Submitted" that was successful. A successful assembly action results in an automatic public comment and therefore this item is automatically placed on the ICC Final Action Agenda.
Reasonwhy wants to paint the NIST as ineffectual, but CLEARLY they are not.
Arthur
You think you have debunked any of my post?
From your own quote You proved my point in the post above about already existing codes!
Then your other quotes prove The International Code Council has to be laughing at the NIST JOKERS:
Disapproved - The committee felt that a comprehensive review and consequence analysis of the NIST report was not yet complete, therefore this proposal was premature. The term 'structural bay' was not defined. The standard 'structural bay' is not used in high rise construction. Justification was not provided for the significant change for the additional separation of exits, especially if the additional stairway in G71 is also required. The 1/2 of the diagonal dimension, in a standard plan with three or more stairways, would force the stairway enclosure to be located outside of the building footprint. An analysis of the architectural and engineering impact of this change must be performed
That must be a politically correct way to state "the NIST IDIOTS would force the third stair to be outside the building".
First there were 4 recommendations that got approved. 1 as submitted, 3 as modified.
The modifications didn't mean they were already implemented, what it means is they were good recommendations, just that the wording needed to be changed a bit.
EXAMPLE
FS100 (IBC) - Sprayed fire resistant materials - application. Would add new text to require that spray fireproofing materials must be installed in accordance with the listing requirements for the fireproofing material. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 6 of the NIST report.
Approved as Modified - This proposal provides enforceable language to assure compliance with code requirements. This helps to address the concern that testing of the adhesion properties must be indicative of the actual in-place conditions. Often, the testing is based on unprimed steel but the actual field installation is done to steel with primers, therefore possibly affecting the adhesion. This proposal includes the provisions directly in the code for easy access and identification by the inspector. The testimony did clarify that the size limitations (Section 714.8.3.2 items 1, 2, and 3) do not limit the size of members which may use SFRM, but instead only limits the size of members for which this section is applicable. All other sizes would be required to comply with their listing.
The Disapprovals that DID occur are NOT FINAL, most simply meant that the proposal had to be reworked to take in other considerations. They will be reworked and submitted again. In other cases, more work needed to be done to support the proposal. Note this meeting happened in Sept 2006.
EXAMPLES:
G72 (IBC) - Exit remoteness. The purpose of this proposal is to require stair shafts to meet more restrictive remoteness criteria - locating the stair shafts as far apart in order to minimize the potential for a single fire event to render both stairs unusable. Stairs would have to be separated one-half of the diagonal distance of the floor if there are two stairways or at least one-third if there are three or more stairways. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 18 of the NIST report.
Disapproved - The committee felt that a comprehensive review and consequence analysis of the NIST report was not yet complete, therefore this proposal was premature. The term 'structural bay' was not defined. The standard 'structural bay' is not used in high rise construction. Justification was not provided for the significant change for the additional separation of exits, especially if the additional stairway in G71 is also required. The 1/2 of the diagonal dimension, in a standard plan with three or more stairways, would force the stairway enclosure to be located outside of the building footprint. An analysis of the architectural and engineering impact of this change must be performed
G69 (IBC) - Building burnout survivability. Would require that buildings greater than 420 feet in height be analyzed and designed to survive a building contents fire without collapse. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 8 of the NIST report.
Disapproved - This proposal was intended to better understand the affect of a building contents fire on the structural integrity of a high rise. Concerns stemmed from a partial reference to the ICC Performance Code within the IBC. The committee felt it needed to be a broader reference or not referenced at all. There was also concern with how the design fire would be determined and how the assumed fire dynamics would be evaluated by the authority having jurisdiction.
Finally, one of the proposals was disapproved by the Committee but the Assembly over-rode the committee and put it on the Action Agenda
G63 (IBC) - Fire service elevator. Would require a minimum of one fire service elevator in buildings 120 feet or higher. The proposal will provide a reasonable degree of safety for firefighters operating the fire service access elevator to a location for staging firefighters and equipment one or two floors below the fire. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 21 of the NIST report.
Disapproved: Assembly action: As Submitted - In general, the committee was in favor of the proposal but disapproved the code change based on a variety of issues that need to be addressed: Concern with terminology which currently references a "building stair" instead of an "exit enclosure." Other concerns related to the standard reference to NEMA SB30 and the size of the elevator lobby.
The ICC process allows for those in the assembly to voice their views on the committee's action in the form of an assembly action where the ICC members vote on the code change. Consideration of this code change included a motion for assembly action for "As Submitted" that was successful. A successful assembly action results in an automatic public comment and therefore this item is automatically placed on the ICC Final Action Agenda.
Reasonwhy wants to paint the NIST as ineffectual, but CLEARLY they are not.
Arthur
You think you have debunked any of my post?
From your own quote You proved my point in the post above about already existing codes!
Then your other quotes prove The International Code Council has to be laughing at the NIST JOKERS:
QUOTE
Disapproved - The committee felt that a comprehensive review and consequence analysis of the NIST report was not yet complete, therefore this proposal was premature. The term 'structural bay' was not defined. The standard 'structural bay' is not used in high rise construction. Justification was not provided for the significant change for the additional separation of exits, especially if the additional stairway in G71 is also required. The 1/2 of the diagonal dimension, in a standard plan with three or more stairways, would force the stairway enclosure to be located outside of the building footprint. An analysis of the architectural and engineering impact of this change must be performed
That must be a politically correct way to state "the NIST IDIOTS would force the third stair to be outside the building".
Actually it would appear the committee got it wrong.
NIST didn't suggest 1/2 the diagonal dimension for THREE or more stairways.
G72 (IBC) - Exit remoteness. The purpose of this proposal is to require stair shafts to meet more restrictive remoteness criteria - locating the stair shafts as far apart in order to minimize the potential for a single fire event to render both stairs unusable. Stairs would have to be separated one-half of the diagonal distance of the floor if there are two stairways or at least one-third if there are three or more stairways. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 18 of the NIST report.
Disapproved - The committee felt that a comprehensive review and consequence analysis of the NIST report was not yet complete, therefore this proposal was premature. The term 'structural bay' was not defined. The standard 'structural bay' is not used in high rise construction. Justification was not provided for the significant change for the additional separation of exits, especially if the additional stairway in G71 is also required. The 1/2 of the diagonal dimension, in a standard plan with three or more stairways, would force the stairway enclosure to be located outside of the building footprint. An analysis of the architectural and engineering impact of this change must be performed
But it is very instructive that you think this is a LAUGHING matter.
HAD the stairways met NIST's MORE RESTRICTIVE REMOTENESS CRITERIA then the lives of THOUSANDS of people in WTC 1 would likely have been saved.
Arthur
NIST didn't suggest 1/2 the diagonal dimension for THREE or more stairways.
QUOTE
G72 (IBC) - Exit remoteness. The purpose of this proposal is to require stair shafts to meet more restrictive remoteness criteria - locating the stair shafts as far apart in order to minimize the potential for a single fire event to render both stairs unusable. Stairs would have to be separated one-half of the diagonal distance of the floor if there are two stairways or at least one-third if there are three or more stairways. This proposal is intended to address, in part, recommendation 18 of the NIST report.
Disapproved - The committee felt that a comprehensive review and consequence analysis of the NIST report was not yet complete, therefore this proposal was premature. The term 'structural bay' was not defined. The standard 'structural bay' is not used in high rise construction. Justification was not provided for the significant change for the additional separation of exits, especially if the additional stairway in G71 is also required. The 1/2 of the diagonal dimension, in a standard plan with three or more stairways, would force the stairway enclosure to be located outside of the building footprint. An analysis of the architectural and engineering impact of this change must be performed
But it is very instructive that you think this is a LAUGHING matter.
HAD the stairways met NIST's MORE RESTRICTIVE REMOTENESS CRITERIA then the lives of THOUSANDS of people in WTC 1 would likely have been saved.
Arthur
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 31 2007, 05:53 PM)
That’s fine and dandy, but this is more of an engineering problem than physics.
You have completely ignored the interdependence of the various components of the structure.
A tree is not hollow.
A tree trunk is not dependent on its branches for its lateral stability.
The ability of the building to support itself is dependent on ALL of its structural elements, especially so with the WTC towers.
So what happens to the core of the building once the floor slabs are stripped away? Without the lateral stability provided by those slabs, would the core have been capable of standing on its own even without the random lateral forces imparted to it by the collapse?
You seem to be implying that the core could have supported the entire weight of the top of the structure even though the core was damaged by the airplane impact.
Once a floor began to collapse, how could the core have been able to "receive" the loads of the falling mass?
These are engineering problems, not physics. however, if you don’t address them, your paper has no practical meaning.
Let us know how that works out for you m’kay?
Hi palpatine,
and thank you for your reply. In physics like in anything else you have to first talk the talk (a.k.a. introduction) before you walk the walk (do the real job).
Ho, ho, ho, .. cherry three is a parody on "pancaking" and pancakes and representing the buildings in their form.
If we talk about the building than cherry three, because of its density, is definitely not the best structure to collapse unto itself, like the WTC's did.
Current "theory" about the collapse as you might now is based on two approaches, one-dimensional models like mine, and some finite element modeling (outsourced by NIST according to their report).
If you agree to observe the building as a homogeneous cake (lots of internal voids, so that, structure may collapse into small compacted heap on the ground) than you agree on a length scale of approximately one floor in height.
The problem with WTC's as I point out in my report is the time in which it collapsed. Even the mechanism you suggest:
1. avalanche destroys the floor slabs and severes them from perimeter columns
2. the core cannot stand that and disintegrates
3. avalanche propagates forward by consuming the core that has just disintegrated (and
also acquired necessary velocity to participate in the avalanche)
ANYBODY CARES ABOUT DYNAMIC FICTION FORCE?
there are two sides to interaction of avalanche and the building: first, you break the piece of the
building (latent energy, as represented by the reaction force, see Bazant or mine paper) then you accelerate that chunk to the same velocity that the avalanche front has.
Problems:
1. duration of collapse - above mechanism takes long time and is inefficient - you are pulling building apart as you progress. Recall: the building was compressed to ground zero.
2. core can stand on its own. the load bearing of the building was divided between the core and the perimeter columns: roughly 1/4 to 3/4. Safety factor is about 2. Thus core can carry 1.5 times the building.
3. additional safety. You recall that building was designed to withstand impact by Boeing 707? If we neglect heat damage there are two components to mechanical damage that had to be dealt with: kinetic energy of impact (small, 1 Gcals, giga calorie, a.k.a. 1 tonne of TNT), and
severing the perimeter columns over the wingspan (worst case scenario).
Now the building had three separated sections, with extra floor support at them, like tables from which the next section was built. So, the maximum load on the building is that the perimeter columns hang on that side of the building from that floor. And they said that the building would not collapse in that case.
Comment regarding the floor collapse and the cherry tree: watch Rambo jumping down the cliff and gets stopped by breaking the branches of the tree. The floors act like semi-permeable membranes. Biggest chunks fly through while the rest gets slowed down. The avalanche front looses its planar aspect and disperses and there goes one-dimensional model of the avalanche through the window. Even Bazant's one. Mine too.
That one-dimensional model works so good in this case is the disturbing factor.
More disturbing is that the parameters that enter that model are so low.
Different authors fudge that in different way. I just refused to do any fudging and just stated what they have to be in order for building to collapse and how low these values are. If you have problem with that, tough luck.
Go ask Bazant what are the values of these parameters in his model, and then ask NIST why don't they embrace Bazant's finding. Two of them seem to cover all angles.
Finally, I am sorry that you have problem with conservation of energy. However, it is a physical fact that one-dimensional model of avalanche does not provide an explanation for where does "sudden" decrease in the reaction force provided by the structure come from.
This is, unfortunately, necessary for the collapse to happen in observed time.
Cheers,
cmb.-
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 7 2007, 02:28 AM)
Except the safety factor is not much help when someone runs a 767 at 500 mph into the side of the building, creating significant asymetric forces, removing much of the critical insulation from the remaining steel structure and then having that structure continually weaken from the thermal stress of the multi-floor fires.
At that point, what MARGIN the designers put in is a moot point.
Once the collapse began, the as designed strength of the bottom structure is again not relevant because the forces were not applied in the CONTROLLED way the designers had in mind. The massive forces unleashed by the collapsing top section OVERWHELMED the relatively puny floor connections and thus instead of stopping the avalanche, the lower floors became part of it.
Arthur
Hi adoucete,
this is correct. You are missing my point. Thermal and other stresses are fine with primary zone. If you read my paper than you will see that I assumed in my initiation of collapse no resistance from the building at all: r=s=0.
This is equivalent to melting steel / crushing concrete over span of 7 floors.
Interestingly enough this aspect of the collapse should be verifiable: ask someone to measure the propagation of collapse front in time for the first 6 or so second (may be difficult due to smoke, Bazant has already given up on that), and then figure out the acceleration of the avalanche (I can give you the pointers for numerical procedures, mostly netlib.org stuff). There should be a strong dip in acceleration when avalanche moves from primary zone (r=s=0) to whatever is in the secondary (r>0,s>0, though). If you don't see the blip, then you should reconsider what some people on this forum are saying (smooth r,s is inconsistent with "avalanche started because of the cracking floors" scenario).
Physics, unfortunately, still imposes a dynamical friction. Accelerating the mass of building to the velocity of avalanche front in effects produces the friction.
Secondly, the point I am raising is not the destruction of the primary zone, but the secondary. For the avalanche to propagate through secondary zone the parameters of the building were well below critical.
The question arise: how did they become so low?
The other reason this is a problem is that such low values are inconsistent with a single front avalanche. They correspond to a building that cannot hold its own weight.
How did the building came to that state, quickly or slow?
If slow, that it should have collapse sooner and slower (with higher resistance from the building).
If fast, ahem ....
Cheers,
cmb.-
At that point, what MARGIN the designers put in is a moot point.
Once the collapse began, the as designed strength of the bottom structure is again not relevant because the forces were not applied in the CONTROLLED way the designers had in mind. The massive forces unleashed by the collapsing top section OVERWHELMED the relatively puny floor connections and thus instead of stopping the avalanche, the lower floors became part of it.
Arthur
Hi adoucete,
this is correct. You are missing my point. Thermal and other stresses are fine with primary zone. If you read my paper than you will see that I assumed in my initiation of collapse no resistance from the building at all: r=s=0.
This is equivalent to melting steel / crushing concrete over span of 7 floors.
Interestingly enough this aspect of the collapse should be verifiable: ask someone to measure the propagation of collapse front in time for the first 6 or so second (may be difficult due to smoke, Bazant has already given up on that), and then figure out the acceleration of the avalanche (I can give you the pointers for numerical procedures, mostly netlib.org stuff). There should be a strong dip in acceleration when avalanche moves from primary zone (r=s=0) to whatever is in the secondary (r>0,s>0, though). If you don't see the blip, then you should reconsider what some people on this forum are saying (smooth r,s is inconsistent with "avalanche started because of the cracking floors" scenario).
Physics, unfortunately, still imposes a dynamical friction. Accelerating the mass of building to the velocity of avalanche front in effects produces the friction.
Secondly, the point I am raising is not the destruction of the primary zone, but the secondary. For the avalanche to propagate through secondary zone the parameters of the building were well below critical.
The question arise: how did they become so low?
The other reason this is a problem is that such low values are inconsistent with a single front avalanche. They correspond to a building that cannot hold its own weight.
How did the building came to that state, quickly or slow?
If slow, that it should have collapse sooner and slower (with higher resistance from the building).
If fast, ahem ....
Cheers,
cmb.-
QUOTE (beck.charles_m+Apr 13 2007, 09:58 PM)
2. core can stand on its own. ... Thus core can carry 1.5 times the building.
False and false again. For the first, determine the Euler buckling for such a tall, slender structure. For the second, read NIST's NCSTAR1-6D which contains actual load calculations. But in particular, the load would have to be transfered through the hat truss as the truss connections were too weak for anything but holding up one floor. Again in NCSTAR1-6D one finds the strength of the hat truss. Turns out it was amazing strong, capable of transferring the entire load of about 15--20 stories worth of exterior wall load onto the core columns. But not more. It would break if more.
In WTC 1, with 14 stories of load so transfered, again by reading NCSTAR1-6D it is possible to estimate that the average DCR would have been well above 1.15, generally considered the DCR at which inelastic behavior occurs.
Finally, the ordinary office trussed floors offered so little resistance to being disconnected that one might as well ignore this trivial consumption of energy.
False and false again. For the first, determine the Euler buckling for such a tall, slender structure. For the second, read NIST's NCSTAR1-6D which contains actual load calculations. But in particular, the load would have to be transfered through the hat truss as the truss connections were too weak for anything but holding up one floor. Again in NCSTAR1-6D one finds the strength of the hat truss. Turns out it was amazing strong, capable of transferring the entire load of about 15--20 stories worth of exterior wall load onto the core columns. But not more. It would break if more.
In WTC 1, with 14 stories of load so transfered, again by reading NCSTAR1-6D it is possible to estimate that the average DCR would have been well above 1.15, generally considered the DCR at which inelastic behavior occurs.
Finally, the ordinary office trussed floors offered so little resistance to being disconnected that one might as well ignore this trivial consumption of energy.
From NCTAR1-6, Tables 8--2 and 8--3, page 242 (324 ordinal) we obtain the following computed DCRs under the assumption that the entire loaded is transfered to the core, the core is undamaged, and the average DCR in the core was 0.5 (which is what NIST claims).
Floor 98: 1.07 (acceptable, less than 1.11)
Floor 105: 1.22 (inelastic behavior will occur)
However, once the damaged and buckled core columns are taken into account, the DCR at collapse initiation is over 2.
Floor 98: 1.07 (acceptable, less than 1.11)
Floor 105: 1.22 (inelastic behavior will occur)
However, once the damaged and buckled core columns are taken into account, the DCR at collapse initiation is over 2.
Photos of the core of the south tower at the end of the main collapse. Those clearly dispel the claim that the core had to collapse in sync with the main floors. The floor connections provided a low energy failure mechanism, although there were others such as column splice failure and buckling.
In the upper half of the towers, most of the mass was in the floor slabs, walls, equipment, and live load, not the columns. In the aircraft impact region near the 83rd story, the column cross-sectional metal area was about 6m2. The column mass was only about 6% of the average story mass of the section of tower above the 83rd story.
In terms of mass, the floors were comparable to tree trunks and the columns were like branches. The floor connections of the long span floors could support a load of a couple story masses and had an energy absorbing ability of a couple hundredths of a GJ per story. The floor connections were like crepe connecting the floors to the columns. The crepe was sufficient for the structure in its static organized state but was a weak link during collapse when the structure in the region of the collapse front no longer resembled the static organized state.
In terms of mass, the floors were comparable to tree trunks and the columns were like branches. The floor connections of the long span floors could support a load of a couple story masses and had an energy absorbing ability of a couple hundredths of a GJ per story. The floor connections were like crepe connecting the floors to the columns. The crepe was sufficient for the structure in its static organized state but was a weak link during collapse when the structure in the region of the collapse front no longer resembled the static organized state.
QUOTE (shagster+Apr 13 2007, 11:00 PM)
Photos of the core of the south tower at the end of the main collapse.
I am under the impression that this was only one or two column lines in the core, not all six. Is this correct?
I am under the impression that this was only one or two column lines in the core, not all six. Is this correct?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 13 2007, 11:15 PM)
I am under the impression that this was only one or two column lines in the core, not all six. Is this correct?
It's difficult to say its span in the east-west direction, although it appears to have some depth in that direction, more than one column. I've been trying to find photos from the north or south side to get a better idea of the width but haven't come up with any. The CBS news copter took video from the south side but I've never been able to find a full resolution copy and one that isn't cut off near the end of the collapse.
It's difficult to say its span in the east-west direction, although it appears to have some depth in that direction, more than one column. I've been trying to find photos from the north or south side to get a better idea of the width but haven't come up with any. The CBS news copter took video from the south side but I've never been able to find a full resolution copy and one that isn't cut off near the end of the collapse.
shagster --- Thanks. There are the stills from the video taken at some distance and after the dust moved off. From that, which gives some indication of the collapse of the temporary 'spire', it appears to me to be just one column line at the east end and about two or perhaps three towards the middle.
In any case, however much, it suffices to make the point you wanted to make...
In any case, however much, it suffices to make the point you wanted to make...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 13 2007, 11:38 PM)
shagster --- Thanks. There are the stills from the video taken at some distance and after the dust moved off. From that, which gives some indication of the collapse of the temporary 'spire', it appears to me to be just one column line at the east end and about two or perhaps three towards the middle.
In any case, however much, it suffices to make the point you wanted to make...
Let me know which video. Thanks.
It looks like the core remnant was at least half the tower height based on its height relative to Bankers Trust. That would be quite tall for a single layer of columns. However, there was a tall single column that stood briefly after the north tower collapse that was at least half the tower height.
In any case, however much, it suffices to make the point you wanted to make...
Let me know which video. Thanks.
It looks like the core remnant was at least half the tower height based on its height relative to Bankers Trust. That would be quite tall for a single layer of columns. However, there was a tall single column that stood briefly after the north tower collapse that was at least half the tower height.
QUOTE (beck.charles_m+Apr 13 2007, 09:58 PM)
That one-dimensional model works so good in this case is the disturbing factor. More disturbing is that the parameters that enter that model are so low. Different authors fudge that in different way. I just refused to do any fudging and just stated what they have to be in order for building to collapse and how low these values are. If you have problem with that, tough luck.
You're trying to use a resistive force during collapse that remains the same as the maximum resistive force based on a static load safety factor. You're not going to get a realistic answer that way. That will give an inflated value for the energy absorbed per story since it doesn't take into account failure mechanisms and the limited energy absorbing abilities of the structural components during their failures. That leads to bizarre conclusions, such as the initial damage region spanning 40 or more stories or explosives planted on every floor and set off in sequence to mimmick a gravity-driven collapse.
QUOTE (shagster+Apr 13 2007, 11:44 PM)
Let me know which video.
Sorry, I don't know who took it. It was done from a park at quite some distance, perhaps across the East River. There are emergency vehicles in the foreground. Several stills from this video have been posted on the web many times, including the PhysOrg part 1 thread.
Apologies that I cannot be more helpful.
Sorry, I don't know who took it. It was done from a park at quite some distance, perhaps across the East River. There are emergency vehicles in the foreground. Several stills from this video have been posted on the web many times, including the PhysOrg part 1 thread.
Apologies that I cannot be more helpful.
Shagster:
"In the upper half of the towers, most of the mass was in the floor slabs, walls, equipment, and live load, not the columns. In the aircraft impact region near the 83rd story, the column cross-sectional metal area was about 6m2. The column mass was only about 6% of the average story mass of the section of tower above the 83rd story.
In terms of mass, the floors were comparable to tree trunks and the columns were like branches. The floor connections of the long span floors could support a load of a couple story masses and had an energy absorbing ability of a couple hundredths of a GJ per story. The floor connections were like crepe connecting the floors to the columns. The crepe was sufficient for the structure in its static organized state but was a weak link during collapse when the structure in the region of the collapse front no longer resembled the static organized state."
Glad to see you are still "at it".....................
"In the upper half of the towers, most of the mass was in the floor slabs, walls, equipment, and live load, not the columns. In the aircraft impact region near the 83rd story, the column cross-sectional metal area was about 6m2. The column mass was only about 6% of the average story mass of the section of tower above the 83rd story.
In terms of mass, the floors were comparable to tree trunks and the columns were like branches. The floor connections of the long span floors could support a load of a couple story masses and had an energy absorbing ability of a couple hundredths of a GJ per story. The floor connections were like crepe connecting the floors to the columns. The crepe was sufficient for the structure in its static organized state but was a weak link during collapse when the structure in the region of the collapse front no longer resembled the static organized state."
Glad to see you are still "at it".....................
shagster --- The clips I recall were of the WTC 1 spire. On PlaguePuppy, for example.
Apologies for the confusion...
Apologies for the confusion...
ABC video of the gash on the south facade shows what appears to be a progressive collapse of floor sections between the 4th and 5th columns. The damage started near the roof level by impacting debris from the north tower collapse. The gash further down is narrower and appears to be defined by the columns. That suggests that the falling debris struck the next floor section below it and collapsed it, which fell on the next section below it and collapsed it, and so on, all the way down.
If the impacting debris participated in creating the gash all the way down, the gash probably wouldn't be so well defined. It looks more like collapsing floor sections between two columns propagated the collapse most of the way down. That indicates that WTC7 wasn't very structurally robust. A similar collapse happened at Ronan apartment in the late 60s. A partial collapse also occurred on the east side of WTC7 a few seconds before the global collapse and apparently spanned the height of the building. The longest span floors were on the east side of the building. The collapse on the east side probably started in the area of the 11th and 12th stories where fires were burning and propagated up to the roof. The collapse on the east side also suggests that WTC7 wasn't structurally robust.
The gash between the 4rd and 5th columns on the south facade appears to be in the same east-west location as the risers for the fuel oil supply which were on the south side of the core near a bank of elevators. The diagrams in NIST show that the pipes exited the south side of the core and went in various directions along a floor. I assembled the pictorial below from diagrams in NCSTAR1-1J.
If the gash penetrated toward the north far enough and went as low as the 9th story, it would have damaged or completely severed some of the oil lines. It's possible that the collapse of floor sections between columns 4 and 5 spanned from the south facade to the core. The ABC video and photos of WTC7 from the southwest side show that the gash went from the roof down to at least the 11th or 12th story. The NIST diagram shows that the fuel line on floor 9 ran from the core toward the perimeter wall about 60% the length of the floor. If that diagram is accurate, the gash would need to penetrate about 40% the distance to the core to reach that line.
If the gash penetrated toward the north far enough and went as low as the 9th story, it would have damaged or completely severed some of the oil lines. It's possible that the collapse of floor sections between columns 4 and 5 spanned from the south facade to the core. The ABC video and photos of WTC7 from the southwest side show that the gash went from the roof down to at least the 11th or 12th story. The NIST diagram shows that the fuel line on floor 9 ran from the core toward the perimeter wall about 60% the length of the floor. If that diagram is accurate, the gash would need to penetrate about 40% the distance to the core to reach that line.
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 13 2007, 06:50 AM)
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%22
The 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.[/QUOTE]
Craig, here are some observations on your prime facie evidence of controlled demolition of the North Tower. In this latest presentation of your's, the video footage of the collapse of the north tower is shot from two miles away, from Hoboken NJ. The location of the reporter describing the event was given as somewhere on the Manhattan Bridge, possibly up to a mile and a half away, across the Hudson River. It's not clear which location the audio of the "thunder" originates.
Here is a condensed version of the analysis from your original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAKfBA8lBYg
In this analysis, they claim that the first "thunder clap" can be heard 17 seconds before the collapse. For comparison, here is a 26 minute video of both collapses shot at a distance of about a third of a mile:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=20...+collapse&hl=en
At 19:38, the collapse of the north tower begins. You can go back a minute and listen all the way up to the collapse, and not a hint of thunder, or a mention of it by the camera operators.
Now for some deja vu. Which account is most factual? The one across the bay in New Jersey? The one across the river in Brooklyn? Or, the one across the street from ground zero?
The two videos are shot at different distances from the tower, so the effects have different time intervals to travel to the cameras.
There is no sound to the first video, as far as I know. If you know of a copy with sound, please share it.
However, this does not matter to the point at hand.
The evidence of the explosion from the shaking of the camera in the first video is corroborated by the video and sound in the second.
They are both factual.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 12 2007, 09:55 PM)
Nope, not going to waste my time on you again.
We heard similar BS from you before remember?
We heard similar BS from you before remember?
QUOTE (CraigTFurlong+)
For once and for all, the Pavel Hlava video is based in fraud.
The story behind the video purports it was done by civilians in an SUV, but the reflection off the window in front of the vehicle proves it was an emergency fire vehicle.
Arthur
Arthur Doucette is a write-off because he is a shill, and once again does not answer the evidence.
But you other OCTs, why are you so silent?
Why don't you deal with this video footage that shows 9/11 to be an inside job?
-
-
-
There are two types of OCT supporter:
#1) the shills
#2) those who actually believe the OCT is correct; however, there IS evidence that shows 9/11 WAS an inside job and warrants a new, real murder investigation .
The shills are just sell-outs to the evil...THEY ARE THE REAL DISINFORMATION ARTISTS...and they are so plastic. But at least they're getting paid (to be shills).
But what are you #2s getting out of the deal by being OCT-a-wusses?
Why, you can't even refute simple video footage, much less deal with it.
You need to leave the OCT-"Disneyland" and get back to the real world. Time is running out. Murder Cabal Inc. is going to do its next event soon and blame it on Al Qaeda.
And it's going to make 9/11 look like a Sunday walk in the park.
God hates murder, for He is a God of love.
THEREFORE THE WICKED WILL NOT STAND IN THE JUDGMENT
NOR SINNERS IN THE ASSEMBLY OF THE RIGHTEOUS
FOR THE LORD KNOWS THE WAY OF THE RIGHTEOUS
BUT THE WAY OF THE WICKED WILL PERISH
Psalm 1
Well OK then, fair enough. But just for purposes of discussion:
HIDE the fact: weren't there entire vacant floors in both Towers which were essentially locked off for renovation? a reported power down the week prior to 9/11, and the removal of all bomb sniffing dogs the week before?
protection from fire and impact: why would pre-planted devices need to be in the impact area if their role was to compromise the core? Severing, or heavily damage the core anywhere should be sufficient.
NORMAL techniques - what's wrong with "un-normal" techniques? remote detonation via say a call to a cell phone used as a trigger device? No need for Det cord or the rest of normal, standard, professional techniques.
What SPECIFIC floors were vacant in each tower?
Besides, this doesn't preclude the need to HIDE their handiwork. Even if a floor is vacant you couldn't take the risk that no one would question a bunch of guys HAULING & INSTALLING all this material and also assume nobody, authorized or not, wouldn't happen by and see it.
Was there a power down in BOTH towers? For how long? What is the possible significance of a SHORT power down?
They would have to be in the impact area because IN BOTH CASES the collapse STARTS at the impact area.
Please explain how CD explosives could go off on OTHER floors, PRIOR to the COLLAPSE and NOT BE OBSERVED?
Please explain how ANY CD device could cause the SLOW BOWING IN of the Exterior Columns on, and ONLY ON, the impact/fire floors?
What's wrong with "un-normal' techniques? Well first off, the more exotic you get the MORE PEOPLE with MORE DIVERSE SKILLS that are needed in the conspiracy and the HIGHER the risk that some part of it will fail to go off and because of its exotic nature, be detected afterward.
The Cell call to one device could set it off, but you would need precisely timed calls to hundreds of devices with near split second timing for each. For WTC 7 this fails since all cell service was gone once WTC 1 went down.
Arthur
The story behind the video purports it was done by civilians in an SUV, but the reflection off the window in front of the vehicle proves it was an emergency fire vehicle.
Arthur
Arthur Doucette is a write-off because he is a shill, and once again does not answer the evidence.
But you other OCTs, why are you so silent?
Why don't you deal with this video footage that shows 9/11 to be an inside job?
-
-
-
There are two types of OCT supporter:
#1) the shills
#2) those who actually believe the OCT is correct; however, there IS evidence that shows 9/11 WAS an inside job and warrants a new, real murder investigation .
The shills are just sell-outs to the evil...THEY ARE THE REAL DISINFORMATION ARTISTS...and they are so plastic. But at least they're getting paid (to be shills).
But what are you #2s getting out of the deal by being OCT-a-wusses?
Why, you can't even refute simple video footage, much less deal with it.
You need to leave the OCT-"Disneyland" and get back to the real world. Time is running out. Murder Cabal Inc. is going to do its next event soon and blame it on Al Qaeda.
And it's going to make 9/11 look like a Sunday walk in the park.
God hates murder, for He is a God of love.
THEREFORE THE WICKED WILL NOT STAND IN THE JUDGMENT
NOR SINNERS IN THE ASSEMBLY OF THE RIGHTEOUS
FOR THE LORD KNOWS THE WAY OF THE RIGHTEOUS
BUT THE WAY OF THE WICKED WILL PERISH
Psalm 1
QUOTE (forthetrees+Apr 13 2007, 02:10 PM)
Well OK then, fair enough. But just for purposes of discussion:
HIDE the fact: weren't there entire vacant floors in both Towers which were essentially locked off for renovation? a reported power down the week prior to 9/11, and the removal of all bomb sniffing dogs the week before?
protection from fire and impact: why would pre-planted devices need to be in the impact area if their role was to compromise the core? Severing, or heavily damage the core anywhere should be sufficient.
NORMAL techniques - what's wrong with "un-normal" techniques? remote detonation via say a call to a cell phone used as a trigger device? No need for Det cord or the rest of normal, standard, professional techniques.
What SPECIFIC floors were vacant in each tower?
Besides, this doesn't preclude the need to HIDE their handiwork. Even if a floor is vacant you couldn't take the risk that no one would question a bunch of guys HAULING & INSTALLING all this material and also assume nobody, authorized or not, wouldn't happen by and see it.
Was there a power down in BOTH towers? For how long? What is the possible significance of a SHORT power down?
They would have to be in the impact area because IN BOTH CASES the collapse STARTS at the impact area.
Please explain how CD explosives could go off on OTHER floors, PRIOR to the COLLAPSE and NOT BE OBSERVED?
Please explain how ANY CD device could cause the SLOW BOWING IN of the Exterior Columns on, and ONLY ON, the impact/fire floors?
What's wrong with "un-normal' techniques? Well first off, the more exotic you get the MORE PEOPLE with MORE DIVERSE SKILLS that are needed in the conspiracy and the HIGHER the risk that some part of it will fail to go off and because of its exotic nature, be detected afterward.
The Cell call to one device could set it off, but you would need precisely timed calls to hundreds of devices with near split second timing for each. For WTC 7 this fails since all cell service was gone once WTC 1 went down.
Arthur
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 14 2007, 12:47 AM)
Time is running out. Murder Cabal Inc. is going to do its next event soon and blame it on Al Qaeda.
And it's going to make 9/11 look like a Sunday walk in the park.
God hates murder, for He is a God of love.
THEREFORE THE WICKED WILL NOT STAND IN THE JUDGMENT
NOR SINNERS IN THE ASSEMBLY OF THE RIGHTEOUS
FOR THE LORD KNOWS THE WAY OF THE RIGHTEOUS
BUT THE WAY OF THE WICKED WILL PERISH
Psalm 1
Well then Craig, apparently YOUR GOD has quite the SENSE OF HUMOR since he must STILL be laughing at your BMW AMBULANCE.
I know I am.
Arthur
And it's going to make 9/11 look like a Sunday walk in the park.
God hates murder, for He is a God of love.
THEREFORE THE WICKED WILL NOT STAND IN THE JUDGMENT
NOR SINNERS IN THE ASSEMBLY OF THE RIGHTEOUS
FOR THE LORD KNOWS THE WAY OF THE RIGHTEOUS
BUT THE WAY OF THE WICKED WILL PERISH
Psalm 1
Well then Craig, apparently YOUR GOD has quite the SENSE OF HUMOR since he must STILL be laughing at your BMW AMBULANCE.
I know I am.
Arthur
"our god"(yours, too, whether you like it or not, LOL), does have a sense of humour.
new penthouse collapse video
the thing about a lie is it disintegrates over time.
new penthouse collapse video
the thing about a lie is it disintegrates over time.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 14 2007, 04:47 AM)
QUOTE (Capracus+ Apr 13 2007, 06:50 AM)
Craig, here are some observations on your prime facie evidence of controlled demolition of the North Tower. In this latest presentation of your's, the video footage of the collapse of the north tower is shot from two miles away, from Hoboken NJ. The location of the reporter describing the event was given as somewhere on the Manhattan Bridge, possibly up to a mile and a half away, across the Hudson River. It's not clear which location the audio of the "thunder" originates.
Here is a condensed version of the analysis from your original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAKfBA8lBYg
In this analysis, they claim that the first "thunder clap" can be heard 17 seconds before the collapse. For comparison, here is a 26 minute video of both collapses shot at a distance of about a third of a mile:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=20...+collapse&hl=en
At 19:38, the collapse of the north tower begins. You can go back a minute and listen all the way up to the collapse, and not a hint of thunder, or a mention of it by the camera operators.
Now for some deja vu. Which account is most factual? The one across the bay in New Jersey? The one across the river in Brooklyn? Or, the one across the street from ground zero?
The two videos are shot at different distances from the tower, so the effects have different time intervals to travel to the cameras.
There is no sound to the first video, as far as I know. If you know of a copy with sound, please share it.
However, this does not matter to the point at hand.
The evidence of the explosion from the shaking of the camera in the first video is corroborated by the video and sound in the second.
They are both factual.
Craig, like I said in the earlier post, it's a matter of which case is the most factual. In your case you have a couple of independent videos that are synced with the audio of a news broadcast that contains some sounds of unknown origin.
The original roof top vent video with the shaking camera, contains its own sound track that is void of any sounds of thunder. The Hoboken video may or may not have its own sound, I too would like to hear the audio if it exists. The news broadcast with the sounds of thunder, was done miles away from ground zero.
The most factually complete video is the What we saw - Bob and Bri footage that was taken across the street from the north tower. This video was shot within 2000 feet of the towers and not a trace of thunder before the collapse. This video evidence totally contradicts the hodgepodge of video and sound that you and your associates peddle as proof of an inside job.
Go spread the news to your friends that this myth is busted
The problem with WTC's as I point out in my report is the time in which it collapsed. Even the mechanism you suggest:
1. avalanche destroys the floor slabs and severes them from perimeter columns
The impact energy of the falling debris pulls the truss bolts out of the angle clips, yes. NIST has photos of angle clips destroyed in this fashion. This includes the clips o the inside and the outside.
2. the core cannot stand that and disintegrates
How inconsiderate of the core. “Well I can’t stnd that so I’ll just disintegrate!”
No one but you is claiming that the core “disintegrated.”
3. avalanche propagates forward by consuming the core that has just disintegrated (and
also acquired necessary velocity to participate in the avalanche)
No, there were three separate processes, the failure of the floor slabs, the failure of the exterior columns and the failure of the core.
Problems:
1. duration of collapse - above mechanism takes long time and is inefficient - you are pulling building apart as you progress. Recall: the building was compressed to ground zero.
Please provide proof that the above mechanisms take a long time. Surely you can provide an estimate for the impact energy on the floor slabs and translate that into an estimate of the force on the bolted clip connections. Remember “Show your work.”
2. core can stand on its own. the load bearing of the building was divided between the core and the perimeter columns: roughly 1/4 to 3/4. Safety factor is about 2. Thus core can carry 1.5 times the building.
No, as it has been pointed out already, the core structure was too unstable to stand on its own. And if you think that the load distribution was anything other than 50/50 between the perimeter columns and the core supports then you are nuts. Sure, the core also supported the elevators, but that was trivial compared to the floor loads of the tenant areas.
3. additional safety. You recall that building was designed to withstand impact by Boeing 707? If we neglect heat damage there are two components to mechanical damage that had to be dealt with: kinetic energy of impact (small, 1 Gcals, giga calorie, a.k.a. 1 tonne of TNT), and severing the perimeter columns over the wingspan (worst case scenario).
Let’s clear up a common misconception here. Too many of the CTers throw that out without understanding the design process at all.
To say that “The building was designed to withstand a jet plane impact” is like saying that a BMW is designed to be a bottle opener. Sure you can find an edge to open a bottle with on a car, but that is not what it was designed for.
There were no specific design criteria for the WTC towers that stated that the building had to withstand the impact of a plane.
AFTER the structure was designed, Robinson did some back of the envelope calcualations and determined that the building could withstand the physical damage caused by an impact. He did not consider the fuel and the resulting fires in that scenario.
Now the building had three separated sections, with extra floor support at them, like tables from which the next section was built. So, the maximum load on the building is that the perimeter columns hang on that side of the building from that floor. And they said that the building would not collapse in that case.
Three separate sections? What are you talking about? Tables? What?
Are you talking about the mechanical floors?
By the time the falling debris reached that point, the resistance that they would have offered would have been trivial.
Who is the “They” that you refer to?
the 100 'elevator mechanics' planted the bombs, ok, arthur? that's why they didn't stick around and help out, after the planes hit.
Sheesh
Even for you, that is a new low.
Here is a condensed version of the analysis from your original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAKfBA8lBYg
In this analysis, they claim that the first "thunder clap" can be heard 17 seconds before the collapse. For comparison, here is a 26 minute video of both collapses shot at a distance of about a third of a mile:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=20...+collapse&hl=en
At 19:38, the collapse of the north tower begins. You can go back a minute and listen all the way up to the collapse, and not a hint of thunder, or a mention of it by the camera operators.
Now for some deja vu. Which account is most factual? The one across the bay in New Jersey? The one across the river in Brooklyn? Or, the one across the street from ground zero?
The two videos are shot at different distances from the tower, so the effects have different time intervals to travel to the cameras.
There is no sound to the first video, as far as I know. If you know of a copy with sound, please share it.
However, this does not matter to the point at hand.
The evidence of the explosion from the shaking of the camera in the first video is corroborated by the video and sound in the second.
They are both factual.
Craig, like I said in the earlier post, it's a matter of which case is the most factual. In your case you have a couple of independent videos that are synced with the audio of a news broadcast that contains some sounds of unknown origin.
The original roof top vent video with the shaking camera, contains its own sound track that is void of any sounds of thunder. The Hoboken video may or may not have its own sound, I too would like to hear the audio if it exists. The news broadcast with the sounds of thunder, was done miles away from ground zero.
The most factually complete video is the What we saw - Bob and Bri footage that was taken across the street from the north tower. This video was shot within 2000 feet of the towers and not a trace of thunder before the collapse. This video evidence totally contradicts the hodgepodge of video and sound that you and your associates peddle as proof of an inside job.
Go spread the news to your friends that this myth is busted
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 13 2007, 01:49 PM)
Actually it would appear the committee got it wrong.
NIST didn't suggest 1/2 the diagonal dimension for THREE or more stairways.
But it is very instructive that you think this is a LAUGHING matter.
HAD the stairways met NIST's MORE RESTRICTIVE REMOTENESS CRITERIA then the lives of THOUSANDS of people in WTC 1 would likely have been saved.
Arthur
No, Arthurs , NIST is humorous, not the tragedy (nice appeal to emotion ).
Why does NIST misrepresent the stairs on the impact floors?
Both the IMPACT FLOORS had 5 and 6 spread out stairways, not 3 as NIST makes reference to in the simulations.
Floor 94
Floor 80
Plus both impact areas were secure data storage areas rented by a single tenet over numerous floors.
Marsh USA 361,000 Insurance 93-100
Fuji Bank 182,956 Financial Institutions 79-82
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants2.html
Were the extra stairs for private use only in secure areas (would be convenient for the thermite fairies )?
NIST didn't suggest 1/2 the diagonal dimension for THREE or more stairways.
But it is very instructive that you think this is a LAUGHING matter.
HAD the stairways met NIST's MORE RESTRICTIVE REMOTENESS CRITERIA then the lives of THOUSANDS of people in WTC 1 would likely have been saved.
Arthur
No, Arthurs , NIST is humorous, not the tragedy (nice appeal to emotion ).
Why does NIST misrepresent the stairs on the impact floors?
Both the IMPACT FLOORS had 5 and 6 spread out stairways, not 3 as NIST makes reference to in the simulations.
Floor 94
Floor 80
Plus both impact areas were secure data storage areas rented by a single tenet over numerous floors.
Marsh USA 361,000 Insurance 93-100
Fuji Bank 182,956 Financial Institutions 79-82
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants2.html
Were the extra stairs for private use only in secure areas (would be convenient for the thermite fairies )?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 13 2007, 11:15 PM)
I am under the impression that this was only one or two column lines in the core, not all six. Is this correct?
The shear size of the core seen through the cloud suggests it's a major portion of the core.
The shear size of the core seen through the cloud suggests it's a major portion of the core.
QUOTE (shagster+Apr 14 2007, 03:47 AM)
The gash between the 4rd and 5th columns on the south facade appears to be in the same east-west location as the risers for the fuel oil supply which were on the south side of the core near a bank of elevators. The diagrams in NIST show that the pipes exited the south side of the core and went in various directions along a floor. I assembled the pictorial below from diagrams in NCSTAR1-1J.
If the gash penetrated toward the north far enough and went as low as the 9th story, it would have damaged or completely severed some of the oil lines. It's possible that the collapse of floor sections between columns 4 and 5 spanned from the south facade to the core. The ABC video and photos of WTC7 from the southwest side show that the gash went from the roof down to at least the 11th or 12th story. The NIST diagram shows that the fuel line on floor 9 ran from the core toward the perimeter wall about 60% the length of the floor. If that diagram is accurate, the gash would need to penetrate about 40% the distance to the core to reach that line.
This "Roof and upper level debris damage" is closer to what I see in the video. The gash seems to go north up to the parapet wall on the roof. You may want to replace your last image with this one. Just a suggestion.
If the gash penetrated toward the north far enough and went as low as the 9th story, it would have damaged or completely severed some of the oil lines. It's possible that the collapse of floor sections between columns 4 and 5 spanned from the south facade to the core. The ABC video and photos of WTC7 from the southwest side show that the gash went from the roof down to at least the 11th or 12th story. The NIST diagram shows that the fuel line on floor 9 ran from the core toward the perimeter wall about 60% the length of the floor. If that diagram is accurate, the gash would need to penetrate about 40% the distance to the core to reach that line.
This "Roof and upper level debris damage" is closer to what I see in the video. The gash seems to go north up to the parapet wall on the roof. You may want to replace your last image with this one. Just a suggestion.
QUOTE (shagster+Apr 13 2007, 09:47 PM)
The gash between the 4rd and 5th columns on the south facade appears to be in the same east-west location as the risers for the fuel oil supply which were on the south side of the core near a bank of elevators. The diagrams in NIST show that the pipes exited the south side of the core and went in various directions along a floor. I assembled the pictorial below from diagrams in NCSTAR1-1J.
If the gash penetrated toward the north far enough and went as low as the 9th story, it would have damaged or completely severed some of the oil lines. It's possible that the collapse of floor sections between columns 4 and 5 spanned from the south facade to the core. The ABC video and photos of WTC7 from the southwest side show that the gash went from the roof down to at least the 11th or 12th story. The NIST diagram shows that the fuel line on floor 9 ran from the core toward the perimeter wall about 60% the length of the floor. If that diagram is accurate, the gash would need to penetrate about 40% the distance to the core to reach that line.
I think that the assumption that the “gash” had to physically extend all the way to the core in order to sever the oil lines or to cause a leak may not be correct.
According to data that I have seen, there was a control valve box mounted directly to the floor slab just before the pipes entered the generator enclosure.
As I understand it, previous, real world studies of buildings subjected to large scale vibration events (i.s earthquakes) have shown that piping mounted in this fashion (suspended hangers, fixed point termination) are subject to breaking.
Thus it may not have been necessary for the ”gash” to have penetrated all that deep. All that would have been required is movement of the frame in that area during the collapse of WTC 1.
If the gash penetrated toward the north far enough and went as low as the 9th story, it would have damaged or completely severed some of the oil lines. It's possible that the collapse of floor sections between columns 4 and 5 spanned from the south facade to the core. The ABC video and photos of WTC7 from the southwest side show that the gash went from the roof down to at least the 11th or 12th story. The NIST diagram shows that the fuel line on floor 9 ran from the core toward the perimeter wall about 60% the length of the floor. If that diagram is accurate, the gash would need to penetrate about 40% the distance to the core to reach that line.
I think that the assumption that the “gash” had to physically extend all the way to the core in order to sever the oil lines or to cause a leak may not be correct.
According to data that I have seen, there was a control valve box mounted directly to the floor slab just before the pipes entered the generator enclosure.
As I understand it, previous, real world studies of buildings subjected to large scale vibration events (i.s earthquakes) have shown that piping mounted in this fashion (suspended hangers, fixed point termination) are subject to breaking.
Thus it may not have been necessary for the ”gash” to have penetrated all that deep. All that would have been required is movement of the frame in that area during the collapse of WTC 1.
notsoquick
Because, just as your delusions of reflections, it DOES NOT show 9/11 to be an inside job, it just illustrates your inability to distinguish fact from fiction and how desperately you are clutching at straws.
You are not worth debating as your integrity is totally shot, starting with your bogus claims of explosions prior to plane impact, continuing with your hysterical(and hysterically funny) claims about the Havel video. The claims you are making for this video are no different, nor are they the least bit more accurate. So, until you show some class and retract the lies you have already spread why should we discuss the lies you just came up with???
Grumpy
QUOTE
Why don't you deal with this video footage that shows 9/11 to be an inside job?
Because, just as your delusions of reflections, it DOES NOT show 9/11 to be an inside job, it just illustrates your inability to distinguish fact from fiction and how desperately you are clutching at straws.
You are not worth debating as your integrity is totally shot, starting with your bogus claims of explosions prior to plane impact, continuing with your hysterical(and hysterically funny) claims about the Havel video. The claims you are making for this video are no different, nor are they the least bit more accurate. So, until you show some class and retract the lies you have already spread why should we discuss the lies you just came up with???
Grumpy
QUOTE (beck.charles_m+Apr 13 2007, 03:58 PM)
The problem with WTC's as I point out in my report is the time in which it collapsed. Even the mechanism you suggest:
1. avalanche destroys the floor slabs and severes them from perimeter columns
The impact energy of the falling debris pulls the truss bolts out of the angle clips, yes. NIST has photos of angle clips destroyed in this fashion. This includes the clips o the inside and the outside.
QUOTE (beck.charles_m+Apr 13 2007, 03:58 PM)
2. the core cannot stand that and disintegrates
How inconsiderate of the core. “Well I can’t stnd that so I’ll just disintegrate!” No one but you is claiming that the core “disintegrated.”
QUOTE (beck.charles_m+Apr 13 2007, 03:58 PM)
3. avalanche propagates forward by consuming the core that has just disintegrated (and
also acquired necessary velocity to participate in the avalanche)
No, there were three separate processes, the failure of the floor slabs, the failure of the exterior columns and the failure of the core.
QUOTE (beck.charles_m+Apr 13 2007, 03:58 PM)
Problems:
1. duration of collapse - above mechanism takes long time and is inefficient - you are pulling building apart as you progress. Recall: the building was compressed to ground zero.
Please provide proof that the above mechanisms take a long time. Surely you can provide an estimate for the impact energy on the floor slabs and translate that into an estimate of the force on the bolted clip connections. Remember “Show your work.”
QUOTE (beck.charles_m+Apr 13 2007, 03:58 PM)
2. core can stand on its own. the load bearing of the building was divided between the core and the perimeter columns: roughly 1/4 to 3/4. Safety factor is about 2. Thus core can carry 1.5 times the building.
No, as it has been pointed out already, the core structure was too unstable to stand on its own. And if you think that the load distribution was anything other than 50/50 between the perimeter columns and the core supports then you are nuts. Sure, the core also supported the elevators, but that was trivial compared to the floor loads of the tenant areas.
QUOTE (beck.charles_m+Apr 13 2007, 03:58 PM)
3. additional safety. You recall that building was designed to withstand impact by Boeing 707? If we neglect heat damage there are two components to mechanical damage that had to be dealt with: kinetic energy of impact (small, 1 Gcals, giga calorie, a.k.a. 1 tonne of TNT), and severing the perimeter columns over the wingspan (worst case scenario).
Let’s clear up a common misconception here. Too many of the CTers throw that out without understanding the design process at all.
To say that “The building was designed to withstand a jet plane impact” is like saying that a BMW is designed to be a bottle opener. Sure you can find an edge to open a bottle with on a car, but that is not what it was designed for.
There were no specific design criteria for the WTC towers that stated that the building had to withstand the impact of a plane.
AFTER the structure was designed, Robinson did some back of the envelope calcualations and determined that the building could withstand the physical damage caused by an impact. He did not consider the fuel and the resulting fires in that scenario.
QUOTE (beck.charles_m+Apr 13 2007, 03:58 PM)
Now the building had three separated sections, with extra floor support at them, like tables from which the next section was built. So, the maximum load on the building is that the perimeter columns hang on that side of the building from that floor. And they said that the building would not collapse in that case.
Three separate sections? What are you talking about? Tables? What?
Are you talking about the mechanical floors?
By the time the falling debris reached that point, the resistance that they would have offered would have been trivial.
Who is the “They” that you refer to?
QUOTE (newton+Apr 13 2007, 12:55 PM)
the 100 'elevator mechanics' planted the bombs, ok, arthur? that's why they didn't stick around and help out, after the planes hit.
Sheesh
Even for you, that is a new low.
newton
Like "Scholors" for truth has self destructed???
And NIST's reports stand unmolested, unchanged and with no sign of disintegration.
So, for once, you seem to be correct. Congratulations!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
the thing about a lie is it disintegrates over time.
Like "Scholors" for truth has self destructed???
And NIST's reports stand unmolested, unchanged and with no sign of disintegration.
So, for once, you seem to be correct. Congratulations!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 13 2007, 10:57 PM)
Well then Craig, apparently YOUR GOD has quite the SENSE OF HUMOR since he must STILL be laughing at your BMW AMBULANCE.
I know I am.
Arthur
Musings from the shill...wrong again.
The emergency vehicle reflection is real, and these facts are real:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...longAndRoss.pdf
WTC1 9/11/01
NIST: 8:46:30 seismic
FAA/Commission: 8:46:40 radar
Get over it -- you lose. Why do you lose?
Because you can't answer questions (due to the Shill Creed?).
If you think you can, answer this one:
What specifically did the FAA base the 8:46:40 time on? {not a trick question}
You never answered this question before, and the answer is so simple:
It's based on the last radar return.
Now, on the latest question, once again...no answer, AND THIS IS WHY YOU LOSE.
Oh, the deceit of the shill mind.
Some antonyms for the word "deceit": fairness, honesty, straightforwardness, truthfulness, uprightness
Isaiah 59:14
Justice is turned back,
And righteousness stands afar off;
For truth is fallen in the street,
And equity cannot enter.
I know I am.
Arthur
Musings from the shill...wrong again.
The emergency vehicle reflection is real, and these facts are real:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...longAndRoss.pdf
WTC1 9/11/01
NIST: 8:46:30 seismic
FAA/Commission: 8:46:40 radar
Get over it -- you lose. Why do you lose?
Because you can't answer questions (due to the Shill Creed?).
If you think you can, answer this one:
What specifically did the FAA base the 8:46:40 time on? {not a trick question}
You never answered this question before, and the answer is so simple:
It's based on the last radar return.
Now, on the latest question, once again...no answer, AND THIS IS WHY YOU LOSE.
Oh, the deceit of the shill mind.
Some antonyms for the word "deceit": fairness, honesty, straightforwardness, truthfulness, uprightness
Isaiah 59:14
Justice is turned back,
And righteousness stands afar off;
For truth is fallen in the street,
And equity cannot enter.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 14 2007, 05:24 PM)
Musings from the shill...wrong again.
The emergency vehicle reflection is real, and these facts are real:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...longAndRoss.pdf
WTC1 9/11/01
NIST: 8:46:30 seismic
FAA/Commission: 8:46:40 radar
Get over it -- you lose. Why do you lose?
Because you can't answer questions (due to the Shill Creed?).
If you think you can, answer this one:
What specifically did the FAA base the 8:46:40 time on? {not a trick question}
You never answered this question before, and the answer is so simple:
It's based on the last radar return.
Now, on the latest question, once again...no answer, AND THIS IS WHY YOU LOSE.
Oh, the deceit of the shill mind.
Some antonyms for the word "deceit": fairness, honesty, straightforwardness, truthfulness, uprightness
Isaiah 59:14
Justice is turned back,
And righteousness stands afar off;
For truth is fallen in the street,
And equity cannot enter.
The emergency vehicle reflection is real, and these facts are real:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...longAndRoss.pdf
WTC1 9/11/01
NIST: 8:46:30 seismic
FAA/Commission: 8:46:40 radar
Get over it -- you lose. Why do you lose?
Because you can't answer questions (due to the Shill Creed?).
If you think you can, answer this one:
What specifically did the FAA base the 8:46:40 time on? {not a trick question}
You never answered this question before, and the answer is so simple:
It's based on the last radar return.
Now, on the latest question, once again...no answer, AND THIS IS WHY YOU LOSE.
Oh, the deceit of the shill mind.
Some antonyms for the word "deceit": fairness, honesty, straightforwardness, truthfulness, uprightness
Isaiah 59:14
Justice is turned back,
And righteousness stands afar off;
For truth is fallen in the street,
And equity cannot enter.
Capracus, the point of the "9/11 Eyewitness" segment I pointed you to is based upon the SCIENTIFIC SOUND ANALYSIS, and yet you write:
Palpatane and Chainsaw and David B Benson,
I am now declaring a "search and rescue" alert throughout this message board to find Dr. Frank Greening(NEU-FONZE)...Some of those threads are trickier than quicksand and I would not want to find out he sunk in a thread while we were all here chatting away!
I know Dr. Greening would never dodge questions
The Cters at 911research maintain those blueprints should be publicly accessible
As a group, both Cters and OCTers...let's fashion a JOINT STATEMENT encouraging Rosie O"Donnell to take a television camera from ABC TV's The View down to the Port Authority...
..to get those blueprints THAT ARE inappropriately being withhheld.
That'll tighten up the discussion parameters for you physicists here, correct?
ALSO>>>
The "steel members that appear to have been partially evaporated".... hmmmm ! yes!-- I've seen the micrograph which shows no "evaporation" occurred.
So let's take a look at the terminal end
So the terminal end of that/those steel members where the evaporation HAD THOUGHT to have occurred would have presented themselves physically as "re-cooled molten steel", correct.
SOLID warms to LIQUID warms to GAS
GAS cools to LIQUID cools to SOLID
...except for the "sublimation" effect of "dry ice"--- SOLID warms to GAS without first converting to a liquid state.
Steel/Iron is not subject to the effects of "sublimation".
So the terminal ends of those steel members WHERE THE EVAPORATION was incorrectly thought to have occurred.
The physical manifestation presented to those fire experts and engineers WOULD HAVE BEEN "molten steel" that had re-cooled to a solid.
1)Partial lengths of steel beams
2)Re-cooled SOLID from what had once been molten at the end of the steel beam where the evaporation HAD BEEN incorrectly adduced.
Approximately above 2700 degrees to melt AND also below 2700degrees to re-cool into a solid.
None of the available combustibles in WTC 7 could achieve those temperatures,correct?
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 14 2007, 01:19 AM)
The Hoboken video may or may not have its own sound, I too would like to hear the audio if it exists.
Are you making this up as you go along?
Did you watch the ~15min segment I pointed you to?
If you haven't, don't come back until you do.
If you have, explain the evidence.
Link "9/11 Eyewitness" video & sound evidence of the explosions that corroborate the demolition of the North Tower; go to the 44-minute 25-second mark {~15 mins in length}:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...1+Eyewitness%22
The explosions, scientifically examined via sound analyses, are prime indicators of controlled demolition, especially when you consider the timing of their occurrence.
Why does this have to be repeated?
ALL OCTs INVITED TO REFUTE THIS {except you won't be able to}.
Are you making this up as you go along?
Did you watch the ~15min segment I pointed you to?
If you haven't, don't come back until you do.
If you have, explain the evidence.
Link "9/11 Eyewitness" video & sound evidence of the explosions that corroborate the demolition of the North Tower; go to the 44-minute 25-second mark {~15 mins in length}:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...1+Eyewitness%22
The explosions, scientifically examined via sound analyses, are prime indicators of controlled demolition, especially when you consider the timing of their occurrence.
Why does this have to be repeated?
ALL OCTs INVITED TO REFUTE THIS {except you won't be able to}.
QUOTE (NIT-PICKER+Apr 14 2007, 06:50 AM)
No, Arthurs , NIST is humorous, not the tragedy (nice appeal to emotion ).
Why does NIST misrepresent the stairs on the impact floors?
Both the IMPACT FLOORS had 5 and 6 spread out stairways, not 3 as NIST makes reference to in the simulations.
Floor 94
Floor 80
Plus both impact areas were secure data storage areas rented by a single tenet over numerous floors.
Marsh USA 361,000 Insurance 93-100
Fuji Bank 182,956 Financial Institutions 79-82
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants2.html
Were the extra stairs for private use only in secure areas (would be convenient for the thermite fairies )?
Only 3 were stairs that EXITED the building, NIST did evaluate damage to those areas based on their impact model and it agreed with the observation that no one above the impact floors escaped from WTC 1 and very few who were still in the upper levels of WTC 2 escaped from above the impact and they all used the stairway on the opposite corner from the impact (stairway A IIRC).
Interfloor stairs were for the convenience of single tennents so their workers didn't have to take the elevators.
Why did NIST not model the stairs?
Because they chose a REPRESENTATIVE Truss Framed Floor and a REPRESENTATIVE BEAM framed floor and used that REPRESENTATIVE floor for all the floors.
The simulation was NEVER intended to be to the precision that YOU think was necessary to evaluate the GLOBAL RESPONSE of the building.
(ps, if you check you will find that because they use ONE floor model for all floors, NIST left out ALL stairways in the models)
Arthur
Why does NIST misrepresent the stairs on the impact floors?
Both the IMPACT FLOORS had 5 and 6 spread out stairways, not 3 as NIST makes reference to in the simulations.
Floor 94
Floor 80
Plus both impact areas were secure data storage areas rented by a single tenet over numerous floors.
Marsh USA 361,000 Insurance 93-100
Fuji Bank 182,956 Financial Institutions 79-82
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants2.html
Were the extra stairs for private use only in secure areas (would be convenient for the thermite fairies )?
Only 3 were stairs that EXITED the building, NIST did evaluate damage to those areas based on their impact model and it agreed with the observation that no one above the impact floors escaped from WTC 1 and very few who were still in the upper levels of WTC 2 escaped from above the impact and they all used the stairway on the opposite corner from the impact (stairway A IIRC).
Interfloor stairs were for the convenience of single tennents so their workers didn't have to take the elevators.
Why did NIST not model the stairs?
Because they chose a REPRESENTATIVE Truss Framed Floor and a REPRESENTATIVE BEAM framed floor and used that REPRESENTATIVE floor for all the floors.
The simulation was NEVER intended to be to the precision that YOU think was necessary to evaluate the GLOBAL RESPONSE of the building.
(ps, if you check you will find that because they use ONE floor model for all floors, NIST left out ALL stairways in the models)
Arthur
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 14 2007, 12:24 PM)
The emergency vehicle reflection is real,
ROTFLMAO
You'd think you would remember your SPANKING.
Guess not.
See: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161196
Arthur
ROTFLMAO
You'd think you would remember your SPANKING.
Guess not.
See: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161196
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 14 2007, 08:57 AM)
notsoquick
Because, just as your delusions of reflections, it DOES NOT show 9/11 to be an inside job, it just illustrates your inability to distinguish fact from fiction and how desperately you are clutching at straws.
You are not worth debating as your integrity is totally shot, starting with your bogus claims of explosions prior to plane impact, continuing with your hysterical(and hysterically funny) claims about the Havel video. The claims you are making for this video are no different, nor are they the least bit more accurate. So, until you show some class and retract the lies you have already spread why should we discuss the lies you just came up with???
Grumpy
I'd never debate you, a shill wanna-be. It'd be a waste of time.
9/11 was an inside job.
Because, just as your delusions of reflections, it DOES NOT show 9/11 to be an inside job, it just illustrates your inability to distinguish fact from fiction and how desperately you are clutching at straws.
You are not worth debating as your integrity is totally shot, starting with your bogus claims of explosions prior to plane impact, continuing with your hysterical(and hysterically funny) claims about the Havel video. The claims you are making for this video are no different, nor are they the least bit more accurate. So, until you show some class and retract the lies you have already spread why should we discuss the lies you just came up with???
Grumpy
I'd never debate you, a shill wanna-be. It'd be a waste of time.
9/11 was an inside job.
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Apr 11 2007, 11:42 AM)
NEU-FONZE...
...could you hyperlink me to where you have answerd Gordon Ross's reply to the article published by you in the journal of 911 studies?
Dr. Greening? Your answer, please? The hyperlink ,please?
The envelope,please?
...could you hyperlink me to where you have answerd Gordon Ross's reply to the article published by you in the journal of 911 studies?
Dr. Greening? Your answer, please? The hyperlink ,please?
The envelope,please?
Dr. Bombay!!... Calling, Dr. Bombay!!!...Can you find Dr. Greening for us, sir?
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.
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.
Chainsaw,
Dr Frank Greening stated the 15 micron diameter iron spheres in the WTC dust were one of the great musteries.
Dr. Greening's "intelligent thermite" WAS FAR MORE INTELLIGENT than anyone could realize...
...it was "intelligent "commercial - grade" thermite" !!!!!:huh: 
Dr Frank Greening stated the 15 micron diameter iron spheres in the WTC dust were one of the great musteries.
Dr. Greening's "intelligent thermite" WAS FAR MORE INTELLIGENT than anyone could realize...
...it was "intelligent "commercial - grade" thermite" !!!!!:huh:
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2007, 10:54 AM)
ROTFLMAO
You'd think you would remember your SPANKING.
Guess not.
See: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161196
Arthur
On the contrary, you lose because you are blind in more ways than one.
See my post at Jan 1 2007, 01:32 PM
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=10170
Wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late.
The truth about 9/11 is coming out and no one is going to stop it.
You'd think you would remember your SPANKING.
Guess not.
See: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161196
Arthur
On the contrary, you lose because you are blind in more ways than one.
See my post at Jan 1 2007, 01:32 PM
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=10170
Wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late.
The truth about 9/11 is coming out and no one is going to stop it.
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Apr 14 2007, 12:53 PM)
Dr. Bombay!!... Calling, Dr. Bombay!!!...Can you find Dr. Greening for us, sir?
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.
To paraphrase the Vander Voot presentation:
“If you heat steel in the presence of oxygen and sulfur you will get intergranular melting which transforms to an Iron Oxide and Iron Sulfide eutectic mixture on cooling . The reaction that results in the formation of this eutectic lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel to about 940C or lower depending on Silicon and Carbon effects at the reaction interfaces.”
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.
To paraphrase the Vander Voot presentation:
“If you heat steel in the presence of oxygen and sulfur you will get intergranular melting which transforms to an Iron Oxide and Iron Sulfide eutectic mixture on cooling . The reaction that results in the formation of this eutectic lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel to about 940C or lower depending on Silicon and Carbon effects at the reaction interfaces.”
QUOTE (Palpatane+Apr 14 2007, 04:17 PM)
Sheesh
Even for you, that is a new low.
why? are they like sadhus to you, or something? do elevator mechanics take a hippocratic oath? are they really holymen?
i'm not stating that elevator mechanics ACTUALLY planted the bombs. it is just ONE POSSIBILITY among many(and a pretty good one at that. that's a CRAPLOAD of elevator mechanics for just two buildings).
i don't live in a self-manufactured bubble of us(insert nationality here) vs. them(insert nationality/creed/religion here). not every american is a frickin' saint. you have to be deaf, blind and completely amnesic to think america is not SEETHING with CORRUPTION. not all people are motivated by honour. they are motivated by survival first. for some, this translates into DOING CRIME to satisfy their LUST FOR POWER and GREED.
whatever. enjoy your life in lollipop land states of america, the land of the freeze on the constitution, and the home of the depraved satanic pedophile leaders.
holy plastic bubble manufactered reality, batman. get the anti-fascism spray.
edit to add the word 'be' before 'deaf'.
Even for you, that is a new low.
why? are they like sadhus to you, or something? do elevator mechanics take a hippocratic oath? are they really holymen?
i'm not stating that elevator mechanics ACTUALLY planted the bombs. it is just ONE POSSIBILITY among many(and a pretty good one at that. that's a CRAPLOAD of elevator mechanics for just two buildings).
i don't live in a self-manufactured bubble of us(insert nationality here) vs. them(insert nationality/creed/religion here). not every american is a frickin' saint. you have to be deaf, blind and completely amnesic to think america is not SEETHING with CORRUPTION. not all people are motivated by honour. they are motivated by survival first. for some, this translates into DOING CRIME to satisfy their LUST FOR POWER and GREED.
whatever. enjoy your life in lollipop land states of america, the land of the freeze on the constitution, and the home of the depraved satanic pedophile leaders.
holy plastic bubble manufactered reality, batman. get the anti-fascism spray.
edit to add the word 'be' before 'deaf'.
QUOTE (FactCheck+Apr 14 2007, 01:05 PM)
The shear[sic] size of the core seen through the cloud suggests it's a major portion of the core.
Thanks. I now think so as well. I had previously been confusing the core remnants of the two towers.
Thanks. I now think so as well. I had previously been confusing the core remnants of the two towers.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 14 2007, 02:46 PM)
enjoy your life in lollipop land states of america, the land of the freeze on the constitution, and the home of the depraved satanic pedophile leaders.
Your PARANOIA becomes you.
Arthur
Your PARANOIA becomes you.
Arthur
2000%? Not a chance. Checking Table 5--1, NCSTAR1--2A, page 89 (123 ordinal), it is possible to estimate that under still air conditions, the exterior columns were operating at a DCR of about 0.44.
Maybe this somehow translates into 200%...
Maybe this somehow translates into 200%...
I too believe it was an inside job. There were too many coincidences for it not to be.
Key people making a killing off 'smart investing' as if they had inside knowledge of what was about to happen.
The confiscation of security footage from a gas station that viewed the Pentagon. If the footage showed what their story was then why not release it? Instead of releasing a few frames that could have easily been edited and really doesn't show one way or the either anyway.
New tower owner taking out special insurance that allowed for a higher than normal payout if both towers were taken out and not just one. Specifically by terrorist acts.
The fist time in history towers have collapse due to a plane colliding into them.
Towers fell in a time (from standing to completely down) consistent with that of a free fall. No toppling over and only burned for an average of 1 hour.
The second tower hit received the least damage and burned the shortest length of time yet collapsed first.
The same support beams exist at all levels of the building. If the support beams on the first floor are strong enough to support the entire weight of the building then those found at the floors impacted were not only strong enough to support the floors they were supporting but were also strong enough to support the weight of the entire building. Could a building (that only had its corner clipped where 90% of the fuel burned up outside the building) have been weakened to such a degree in such a short amount of time in an uncontrolled burn where the temperature will reach 1200 deg C at best in specific hot zones?
Why do pictures of the aftermath show the main support beam with angled cuts with slag remnants just under them which is consistent with demo charge placement.
The list just goes on.
I'm not one to say the whole thing was staged (in that the planes used were no hijacked airliners), I'm just saying that Bin Laden had inside help. Now the people involved (and those who have benefited) were Bush and those close to him (family, friends and acquaintances). After all Bush and Bin Laden are in the oil business together.
Key people making a killing off 'smart investing' as if they had inside knowledge of what was about to happen.
The confiscation of security footage from a gas station that viewed the Pentagon. If the footage showed what their story was then why not release it? Instead of releasing a few frames that could have easily been edited and really doesn't show one way or the either anyway.
New tower owner taking out special insurance that allowed for a higher than normal payout if both towers were taken out and not just one. Specifically by terrorist acts.
The fist time in history towers have collapse due to a plane colliding into them.
Towers fell in a time (from standing to completely down) consistent with that of a free fall. No toppling over and only burned for an average of 1 hour.
The second tower hit received the least damage and burned the shortest length of time yet collapsed first.
The same support beams exist at all levels of the building. If the support beams on the first floor are strong enough to support the entire weight of the building then those found at the floors impacted were not only strong enough to support the floors they were supporting but were also strong enough to support the weight of the entire building. Could a building (that only had its corner clipped where 90% of the fuel burned up outside the building) have been weakened to such a degree in such a short amount of time in an uncontrolled burn where the temperature will reach 1200 deg C at best in specific hot zones?
Why do pictures of the aftermath show the main support beam with angled cuts with slag remnants just under them which is consistent with demo charge placement.
The list just goes on.
I'm not one to say the whole thing was staged (in that the planes used were no hijacked airliners), I'm just saying that Bin Laden had inside help. Now the people involved (and those who have benefited) were Bush and those close to him (family, friends and acquaintances). After all Bush and Bin Laden are in the oil business together.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Apr 14 2007, 04:13 PM)
Palpatane and Chainsaw and David B Benson,
I am now declaring a "search and rescue" alert throughout this message board to find Dr. Frank Greening(NEU-FONZE)...Some of those threads are trickier than quicksand and I would not want to find out he sunk in a thread while we were all here chatting away!
I know Dr. Greening would never dodge questions
The Cters at 911research maintain those blueprints should be publicly accessible
As a group, both Cters and OCTers...let's fashion a JOINT STATEMENT encouraging Rosie O"Donnell to take a television camera from ABC TV's The View down to the Port Authority...
..to get those blueprints THAT ARE inappropriately being withhheld.
That'll tighten up the discussion parameters for you physicists here, correct?
ALSO>>>
The "steel members that appear to have been partially evaporated".... hmmmm ! yes!-- I've seen the micrograph which shows no "evaporation" occurred.
So let's take a look at the terminal end
So the terminal end of that/those steel members where the evaporation HAD THOUGHT to have occurred would have presented themselves physically as "re-cooled molten steel", correct.
SOLID warms to LIQUID warms to GAS
GAS cools to LIQUID cools to SOLID
...except for the "sublimation" effect of "dry ice"--- SOLID warms to GAS without first converting to a liquid state.
Steel/Iron is not subject to the effects of "sublimation".
So the terminal ends of those steel members WHERE THE EVAPORATION was incorrectly thought to have occurred.
The physical manifestation presented to those fire experts and engineers WOULD HAVE BEEN "molten steel" that had re-cooled to a solid.
1)Partial lengths of steel beams
2)Re-cooled SOLID from what had once been molten at the end of the steel beam where the evaporation HAD BEEN incorrectly adduced.
Approximately above 2700 degrees to melt AND also below 2700degrees to re-cool into a solid.
None of the available combustibles in WTC 7 could achieve those temperatures,correct?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Apr 14 2007, 08:17 PM)
Towers fell in a time (from standing to completely down) consistent with that of a free fall. ...
The second tower hit received the least damage ...
false and false again.
WTC 1 fell, for the first few seconds with actual measurements, at about (2/3)g.
WTC 2 fell, for the first few seconds with actual measurements, at about (3/4)g.
Neither rate is 'near free-fall'.
WTC 2 received more damage because the aircraft was flying much faster and the impact was not symmetric.
I encourage you to read the threads on the Debunking 911 and 911Myths sites for carefully researched, factual information.
The second tower hit received the least damage ...
false and false again.
WTC 1 fell, for the first few seconds with actual measurements, at about (2/3)g.
WTC 2 fell, for the first few seconds with actual measurements, at about (3/4)g.
Neither rate is 'near free-fall'.
WTC 2 received more damage because the aircraft was flying much faster and the impact was not symmetric.
I encourage you to read the threads on the Debunking 911 and 911Myths sites for carefully researched, factual information.
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Apr 14 2007, 07:01 PM)
Chainsaw,
Dr Frank Greening stated the 15 micron diameter iron spheres in the WTC dust were one of the great musteries.
Dr. Greening's "intelligent thermite" WAS FAR MORE INTELLIGENT than anyone could realize...
...it was "intelligent "commercial - grade" thermite" !!!!!:huh:
Blood contains Iron combined with an Ion carrier, The result is iron converted to iron oxide, when it reacts with carbon in the cells that converts it to carbon dioxide, and back to iron.
I wonder what Ion carrier was in the building?
Do not mix these with iron, or steel trust me do not mix these!
Dr Frank Greening stated the 15 micron diameter iron spheres in the WTC dust were one of the great musteries.
Dr. Greening's "intelligent thermite" WAS FAR MORE INTELLIGENT than anyone could realize...
...it was "intelligent "commercial - grade" thermite" !!!!!:huh:
Blood contains Iron combined with an Ion carrier, The result is iron converted to iron oxide, when it reacts with carbon in the cells that converts it to carbon dioxide, and back to iron.
I wonder what Ion carrier was in the building?
Do not mix these with iron, or steel trust me do not mix these!
kahlmyishmael
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...
Actually, in the presence of Sulfur(say, from diesel fuel) steel ERODES at less than 1000 degreesC,DA. This is a well known phenomina, not an exotic reaction.
notsoquickandbraindead
Everything you have ever posted has been shown to be a lie, only your complete lack of integrity allows you to show your face around here. That's OK, be as dishonest and mendaceous as you like, just don't for a second make the mistake of thinking you are fooling anyone but yourself(and maybe a few of your tin hat wearing comrades).
Grumpy
QUOTE
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...
Actually, in the presence of Sulfur(say, from diesel fuel) steel ERODES at less than 1000 degreesC,DA. This is a well known phenomina, not an exotic reaction.
notsoquickandbraindead
Everything you have ever posted has been shown to be a lie, only your complete lack of integrity allows you to show your face around here. That's OK, be as dishonest and mendaceous as you like, just don't for a second make the mistake of thinking you are fooling anyone but yourself(and maybe a few of your tin hat wearing comrades).
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 14 2007, 08:39 PM)
kahlmyishmael
Actually, in the presence of Sulfur(say, from diesel fuel) steel ERODES at less than 1000 degreesC,DA. This is a well known phenomina, not an exotic reaction.
notsoquickandbraindead
Everything you have ever posted has been shown to be a lie, only your complete lack of integrity allows you to show your face around here. That's OK, be as dishonest and mendaceous as you like, just don't for a second make the mistake of thinking you are fooling anyone but yourself(and maybe a few of your tin hat wearing comrades).
Grumpy
Yeah, but what would have made them draw the "incorrect conclusion" was the terminal ends... which would have shown evidence of ONCE molten steel NOW re-cooled to a solid.
Also...
Grumpy...why did you not hit the quote button to reply to the 911commission document I quoted from "hollow steel shaft"
..yeah!...you said the 911commission did not deny the existence of the core column in your reply...but we could have ALL SEEN exactly what the 911commission report DID IN FACT say.
You did not want the PhysOrg readership to read the portion of the document you were replying to.
Actually, in the presence of Sulfur(say, from diesel fuel) steel ERODES at less than 1000 degreesC,DA. This is a well known phenomina, not an exotic reaction.
notsoquickandbraindead
Everything you have ever posted has been shown to be a lie, only your complete lack of integrity allows you to show your face around here. That's OK, be as dishonest and mendaceous as you like, just don't for a second make the mistake of thinking you are fooling anyone but yourself(and maybe a few of your tin hat wearing comrades).
Grumpy
Yeah, but what would have made them draw the "incorrect conclusion" was the terminal ends... which would have shown evidence of ONCE molten steel NOW re-cooled to a solid.
Also...
Grumpy...why did you not hit the quote button to reply to the 911commission document I quoted from "hollow steel shaft"
..yeah!...you said the 911commission did not deny the existence of the core column in your reply...but we could have ALL SEEN exactly what the 911commission report DID IN FACT say.
You did not want the PhysOrg readership to read the portion of the document you were replying to.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Apr 14 2007, 08:17 PM)
I too believe it was an inside job. There were too many coincidences for it not to be.
Key people making a killing off 'smart investing' as if they had inside knowledge of what was about to happen.
The confiscation of security footage from a gas station that viewed the Pentagon. If the footage showed what their story was then why not release it? Instead of releasing a few frames that could have easily been edited and really doesn't show one way or the either anyway.
New tower owner taking out special insurance that allowed for a higher than normal payout if both towers were taken out and not just one. Specifically by terrorist acts.
The fist time in history towers have collapse due to a plane colliding into them.
Towers fell in a time (from standing to completely down) consistent with that of a free fall. No toppling over and only burned for an average of 1 hour.
The second tower hit received the least damage and burned the shortest length of time yet collapsed first.
The same support beams exist at all levels of the building. If the support beams on the first floor are strong enough to support the entire weight of the building then those found at the floors impacted were not only strong enough to support the floors they were supporting but were also strong enough to support the weight of the entire building. Could a building (that only had its corner clipped where 90% of the fuel burned up outside the building) have been weakened to such a degree in such a short amount of time in an uncontrolled burn where the temperature will reach 1200 deg C at best in specific hot zones?
Why do pictures of the aftermath show the main support beam with angled cuts with slag remnants just under them which is consistent with demo charge placement.
The list just goes on.
I'm not one to say the whole thing was staged (in that the planes used were no hijacked airliners), I'm just saying that Bin Laden had inside help. Now the people involved (and those who have benefited) were Bush and those close to him (family, friends and acquaintances). After all Bush and Bin Laden are in the oil business together.
Then please elaborate on how it could be done I have not heard one congestive theory yet on how it could have been done.
Except one, and it is not space beam weapons or thermite.
IT is also not the Theory that NIST eludes too, or that Dr. Judy woods, or Dr. Steven Jones, describes.
So tell me how it could have been done.
Key people making a killing off 'smart investing' as if they had inside knowledge of what was about to happen.
The confiscation of security footage from a gas station that viewed the Pentagon. If the footage showed what their story was then why not release it? Instead of releasing a few frames that could have easily been edited and really doesn't show one way or the either anyway.
New tower owner taking out special insurance that allowed for a higher than normal payout if both towers were taken out and not just one. Specifically by terrorist acts.
The fist time in history towers have collapse due to a plane colliding into them.
Towers fell in a time (from standing to completely down) consistent with that of a free fall. No toppling over and only burned for an average of 1 hour.
The second tower hit received the least damage and burned the shortest length of time yet collapsed first.
The same support beams exist at all levels of the building. If the support beams on the first floor are strong enough to support the entire weight of the building then those found at the floors impacted were not only strong enough to support the floors they were supporting but were also strong enough to support the weight of the entire building. Could a building (that only had its corner clipped where 90% of the fuel burned up outside the building) have been weakened to such a degree in such a short amount of time in an uncontrolled burn where the temperature will reach 1200 deg C at best in specific hot zones?
Why do pictures of the aftermath show the main support beam with angled cuts with slag remnants just under them which is consistent with demo charge placement.
The list just goes on.
I'm not one to say the whole thing was staged (in that the planes used were no hijacked airliners), I'm just saying that Bin Laden had inside help. Now the people involved (and those who have benefited) were Bush and those close to him (family, friends and acquaintances). After all Bush and Bin Laden are in the oil business together.
Then please elaborate on how it could be done I have not heard one congestive theory yet on how it could have been done.
Except one, and it is not space beam weapons or thermite.
IT is also not the Theory that NIST eludes too, or that Dr. Judy woods, or Dr. Steven Jones, describes.
So tell me how it could have been done.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 14 2007, 08:01 PM)
2000%? Not a chance. Checking Table 5--1, NCSTAR1--2A, page 89 (123 ordinal), it is possible to estimate that under still air conditions, the exterior columns were operating at a DCR of about 0.44.
Maybe this somehow translates into 200%...
In a perfect universe if even the movement from a whisper could be eliminate then the buildings steel beam structure could surport 2000% it own weight.
How ever under that load the fluff of wind from a falling feather would collapse it.
Remember that only Cters live in a perfect universe of their own making where compression is king and tension does not need to be worried about.
The designer was just stating a fact if compression were the only load, and tensile strenght of steel did not apply.
Maybe this somehow translates into 200%...
In a perfect universe if even the movement from a whisper could be eliminate then the buildings steel beam structure could surport 2000% it own weight.
How ever under that load the fluff of wind from a falling feather would collapse it.
Remember that only Cters live in a perfect universe of their own making where compression is king and tension does not need to be worried about.
The designer was just stating a fact if compression were the only load, and tensile strenght of steel did not apply.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Apr 14 2007, 08:34 PM)
Blood contains Iron combined with an Ion carrier, The result is iron converted to iron oxide, when it reacts with carbon in the cells that converts it to carbon dioxide, and back to iron.
I wonder what Ion carrier was in the building?
Do not mix these with iron, or steel trust me do not mix these!
So what Dr Frank Greening himself stated was one of the "great mysteries" was not such a great mystery after all, Chainsaw.
Let's fashion a statement WHERE HE CAN publicly refer to Professor Steven Jones as a fraud based on your above explanation...
DRAFT OF PROPOSED TEXT FOR DR. FRANK GREENING PhD to offer:
I Dr Frank Greening, publicly call Professor Steven Jones a fraud/liar for maintaining that the 15 micron diameter iron spheres were evidence of "commercial grade" thermite.
I just wish that I, Dr Frank Greening PhD, had had Chainsaw with me by my side on that radio interview when I said it was one of the "great mysteries".
It was not such a "great mystery" after all AS EVIDENCED BY chainsaw's quoted text in the letterbox above.
I, Dr. Frank Greening PhD, offer Chainsaw's explanation quoted above as being COMPLETELY DISPOSITIVE of the 15 micron diameter sphere lie/fraud perpetrated by Professor Steven Jones.
I, Dr Frank Greening PhD back Chainsaw's above explanation for the 15 micron iron sphere formation WITH THE full force of my professional reputation
[end of proposed draft for Dr. Frank Greening PhD to affix his signature AND professional reputation to]
Well, Chainsaw...care to edit/redact the proposed statement... Gosh, if only Dr Frank Greening had had you by his side he WOULD NOT have made a fool of himself by saying the 15 micron iron sphere formation was one of the "great mysteries"
You just clearly pointed out it was NO BIG MYSTERY after all, correct?
I wonder what Ion carrier was in the building?
Do not mix these with iron, or steel trust me do not mix these!
So what Dr Frank Greening himself stated was one of the "great mysteries" was not such a great mystery after all, Chainsaw.
Let's fashion a statement WHERE HE CAN publicly refer to Professor Steven Jones as a fraud based on your above explanation...
DRAFT OF PROPOSED TEXT FOR DR. FRANK GREENING PhD to offer:
I Dr Frank Greening, publicly call Professor Steven Jones a fraud/liar for maintaining that the 15 micron diameter iron spheres were evidence of "commercial grade" thermite.
I just wish that I, Dr Frank Greening PhD, had had Chainsaw with me by my side on that radio interview when I said it was one of the "great mysteries".
It was not such a "great mystery" after all AS EVIDENCED BY chainsaw's quoted text in the letterbox above.
I, Dr. Frank Greening PhD, offer Chainsaw's explanation quoted above as being COMPLETELY DISPOSITIVE of the 15 micron diameter sphere lie/fraud perpetrated by Professor Steven Jones.
I, Dr Frank Greening PhD back Chainsaw's above explanation for the 15 micron iron sphere formation WITH THE full force of my professional reputation
[end of proposed draft for Dr. Frank Greening PhD to affix his signature AND professional reputation to]
Well, Chainsaw...care to edit/redact the proposed statement... Gosh, if only Dr Frank Greening had had you by his side he WOULD NOT have made a fool of himself by saying the 15 micron iron sphere formation was one of the "great mysteries"
You just clearly pointed out it was NO BIG MYSTERY after all, correct?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 14 2007, 08:32 PM)
false and false again.
WTC 1 fell, for the first few seconds with actual measurements, at about (2/3)g.
WTC 2 fell, for the first few seconds with actual measurements, at about (3/4)g.
Neither rate is 'near free-fall'.
WTC 2 received more damage because the aircraft was flying much faster and the impact was not symmetric.
I encourage you to read the threads on the Debunking 911 and 911Myths sites for carefully researched, factual information.
David B Benson...
1)will either of those debunking sites confirm Arthur(Adoucette's) contention that Andrew Card was really whispering into George Bush's ear,...
"Mr President...that plane you just saw WITH THE TV THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY "ON" but with the VOLUME OBVIOUSLY TURNED "OFF" before we whisked you away INTO THIS CLASSROOM was not the first plane BUT IT WAS a second plane.... and it was not a Cessna but INSTEAD a much, much larger 757....Mr. President! America is under attack by two terrible pilots"
I mean those debunking sites must contain that info, David... otherwise YOU and your fellow OCTers would have challenged Arthur and Grumpy on their attempted fraud/dishonesty immediately,correct?
2)David B Benson,
Is quickandthedead correct in saying that the radar set report cited by the debunking sites in refuting "seismic proof" ALSO STATED the radars were all synchronized to the atomic clock(UTC)?
I challenge that statement by quickandthe dead BECAUSE YOU OCTers would ALL HAVE challenged the debunking sites if they had engaged in that type of "intellectual dishonesty", correct?
WTC 1 fell, for the first few seconds with actual measurements, at about (2/3)g.
WTC 2 fell, for the first few seconds with actual measurements, at about (3/4)g.
Neither rate is 'near free-fall'.
WTC 2 received more damage because the aircraft was flying much faster and the impact was not symmetric.
I encourage you to read the threads on the Debunking 911 and 911Myths sites for carefully researched, factual information.
David B Benson...
1)will either of those debunking sites confirm Arthur(Adoucette's) contention that Andrew Card was really whispering into George Bush's ear,...
"Mr President...that plane you just saw WITH THE TV THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY "ON" but with the VOLUME OBVIOUSLY TURNED "OFF" before we whisked you away INTO THIS CLASSROOM was not the first plane BUT IT WAS a second plane.... and it was not a Cessna but INSTEAD a much, much larger 757....Mr. President! America is under attack by two terrible pilots"
I mean those debunking sites must contain that info, David... otherwise YOU and your fellow OCTers would have challenged Arthur and Grumpy on their attempted fraud/dishonesty immediately,correct?
2)David B Benson,
Is quickandthedead correct in saying that the radar set report cited by the debunking sites in refuting "seismic proof" ALSO STATED the radars were all synchronized to the atomic clock(UTC)?
I challenge that statement by quickandthe dead BECAUSE YOU OCTers would ALL HAVE challenged the debunking sites if they had engaged in that type of "intellectual dishonesty", correct?
kahlmyishmael
Grumpy...why did you not hit the quote button to reply to the 911commission document I quoted from "hollow steel shaft"
..yeah!...you said the 911commission did not deny the existence of the core column in your reply...but we could have ALL SEEN exactly what the 911commission report DID IN FACT say.
You did not want the PhysOrg readership to read the portion of the document you were replying to.
Anyone can obtain a copy and read that report all they like. It is not as accurate or as scientifically useful as the NIST reports. But I could care less if anyone reads it, just try to understand what it really says and not twist the words to try to change their meaning, as you tend to do. That is just stupidity in service to el Queda and Ben Laden, and a huge injustice to the innocent, loyal Americans you so blithely accuse of treasonous acts.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Grumpy...why did you not hit the quote button to reply to the 911commission document I quoted from "hollow steel shaft"
..yeah!...you said the 911commission did not deny the existence of the core column in your reply...but we could have ALL SEEN exactly what the 911commission report DID IN FACT say.
You did not want the PhysOrg readership to read the portion of the document you were replying to.
Anyone can obtain a copy and read that report all they like. It is not as accurate or as scientifically useful as the NIST reports. But I could care less if anyone reads it, just try to understand what it really says and not twist the words to try to change their meaning, as you tend to do. That is just stupidity in service to el Queda and Ben Laden, and a huge injustice to the innocent, loyal Americans you so blithely accuse of treasonous acts.
Grumpy
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Apr 14 2007, 09:11 PM)
So what Dr Frank Greening himself stated was one of the "great mysteries" was not such a great mystery after all, Chainsaw.
Let's fashion a statement WHERE HE CAN publicly refer to Professor Steven Jones as a fraud based on your above explanation...
DRAFT OF PROPOSED TEXT FOR DR. FRANK GREENING PhD to offer:
I Dr Frank Greening, publicly call Professor Steven Jones a fraud/liar for maintaining that the 15 micron diameter iron spheres were evidence of "commercial grade" thermite.
I just wish that I, Dr Frank Greening PhD, had had Chainsaw with me by my side on that radio interview when I said it was one of the "great mysteries".
It was not such a "great mystery" after all AS EVIDENCED BY chainsaw's quoted text in the letterbox above.
I, Dr. Frank Greening PhD, offer Chainsaw's explanation quoted above as being COMPLETELY DISPOSITIVE of the 15 micron diameter sphere lie/fraud perpetrated by Professor Steven Jones.
I, Dr Frank Greening PhD back Chainsaw's above explanation for the 15 micron iron sphere formation WITH THE full force of my professional reputation
[end of proposed draft for Dr. Frank Greening PhD to affix his signature AND professional reputation to]
Well, Chainsaw...care to edit/redact the proposed statement... Gosh, if only Dr Frank Greening had had you by his side he WOULD NOT have made a fool of himself by saying the 15 micron iron sphere formation was one of the "great mysteries"
You just clearly pointed out it was NO BIG MYSTERY after all, correct?
If you knew anything you would know why putting aluminum in a pan, and spraying it with water would not give you a hydrogen reaction in Aluminum.
Placing the aluminum on a concrete slab, and subjecting it to a hydrogen explosion in an enviroment with steam would.
Thermite is not a problem to make if you understand how to make it, how many pans of aluminum were at the World Trade center ?
How many sources of hydrogen ?
All you need is a structure that would induce its collection, and something to ignite it and buildings go boom.
Let's fashion a statement WHERE HE CAN publicly refer to Professor Steven Jones as a fraud based on your above explanation...
DRAFT OF PROPOSED TEXT FOR DR. FRANK GREENING PhD to offer:
I Dr Frank Greening, publicly call Professor Steven Jones a fraud/liar for maintaining that the 15 micron diameter iron spheres were evidence of "commercial grade" thermite.
I just wish that I, Dr Frank Greening PhD, had had Chainsaw with me by my side on that radio interview when I said it was one of the "great mysteries".
It was not such a "great mystery" after all AS EVIDENCED BY chainsaw's quoted text in the letterbox above.
I, Dr. Frank Greening PhD, offer Chainsaw's explanation quoted above as being COMPLETELY DISPOSITIVE of the 15 micron diameter sphere lie/fraud perpetrated by Professor Steven Jones.
I, Dr Frank Greening PhD back Chainsaw's above explanation for the 15 micron iron sphere formation WITH THE full force of my professional reputation
[end of proposed draft for Dr. Frank Greening PhD to affix his signature AND professional reputation to]
Well, Chainsaw...care to edit/redact the proposed statement... Gosh, if only Dr Frank Greening had had you by his side he WOULD NOT have made a fool of himself by saying the 15 micron iron sphere formation was one of the "great mysteries"
You just clearly pointed out it was NO BIG MYSTERY after all, correct?
If you knew anything you would know why putting aluminum in a pan, and spraying it with water would not give you a hydrogen reaction in Aluminum.
Placing the aluminum on a concrete slab, and subjecting it to a hydrogen explosion in an enviroment with steam would.
Thermite is not a problem to make if you understand how to make it, how many pans of aluminum were at the World Trade center ?
How many sources of hydrogen ?
All you need is a structure that would induce its collection, and something to ignite it and buildings go boom.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 14 2007, 03:39 PM)
notsoquickandbraindead
Everything you have ever posted has been shown to be a lie, only your complete lack of integrity allows you to show your face around here. That's OK, be as dishonest and mendaceous as you like, just don't for a second make the mistake of thinking you are fooling anyone but yourself(and maybe a few of your tin hat wearing comrades).
Grumpy
You can tell how weak his arguments are by the amount of SCRIPTURE he quotes.
Too bad he ignores one of the key ones: "thou shalt not lie".
Arthur
Everything you have ever posted has been shown to be a lie, only your complete lack of integrity allows you to show your face around here. That's OK, be as dishonest and mendaceous as you like, just don't for a second make the mistake of thinking you are fooling anyone but yourself(and maybe a few of your tin hat wearing comrades).
Grumpy
You can tell how weak his arguments are by the amount of SCRIPTURE he quotes.
Too bad he ignores one of the key ones: "thou shalt not lie".
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2007, 05:51 AM)
What SPECIFIC floors were vacant in each tower?
9/11 Planes Flew Directly into
Secure Computer Rooms in Both Towers
About the power down:
Interview with Scott Forbes
About the power down:
Interview with Scott Forbes
Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower of the world trade center, witnessed a power-down of the tower in the weekend before 9/11.
"Many, many people worked on the power down, both from the IT department and from the business, revalidating systems when they were available again. Other people can validate my information. Some people do not remember the circumstances, some people will not revisit that time ... but others acknowledge the power down freely and can validate my information."
notsoquickandbraindead
Everything you have ever posted has been shown to be a lie, only your complete lack of integrity allows you to show your face around here. That's OK, be as dishonest and mendaceous as you like, just don't for a second make the mistake of thinking you are fooling anyone but yourself(and maybe a few of your tin hat wearing comrades).
Grumpy
Grumpy has to throw his two cents in all the time, poor little feller.
Have you noticed he also likes to call people liars a lot, which is, BTW, the hallmark of a less-than-average shill.
But that's sure a nice picture you got there of that fire truck's reflection in the rear window of that car, Grumpy! Thanks!
{to Grumpy}
You can tell how weak his arguments are by the amount of SCRIPTURE he quotes.
Too bad he ignores one of the key ones: "thou shalt not lie".
Arthur
Cool. I've got you both together for this.
Neither of you came up with an answer or defense to the video presented (gee, how predictable was that?).
No answer means you lose...and 9/11 WAS an inside job.
You got that, doc, grumpy?
Good -- be sure to tell your buddy, dopey.
BUT HE TURNED AND SAID TO PETER
GET BEHIND ME SATAN
YOU ARE A STUMBLING BLOCK TO ME
FOR YOU ARE NOT SETTING YOUR MIND ON GOD'S INTERESTS BUT MAN'S
9/11 Planes Flew Directly into
Secure Computer Rooms in Both Towers
QUOTE
...if the 81st floor was a normal office floor of Fuji Bank, why doesn't the NIST report simply say so?
Silence was all I ever received from NIST.
Then, suddenly, out of the blue, a former bank employee came forward, a person who had visited the 81st floor on a weekly basis. His information explains more than he probably thought and provides us with a major clue about what really happened on 9/11.
Fuji Bank had torn up the 81st floor, he said, and stripped it down to the bare bone to reinforce the trusses so that the floor could hold more weight. Then they had built a raised floor and filled the entire floor with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.
These units were bolted to the raised floor which stood about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. Beneath the raised floor ran the cables and power supply that connected the army of batteries. IT techies had to get down on all fours and crawl around beneath the raised floor to connect cables.
"The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.
But were they really batteries?
"It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."
...
"Nobody worked on that floor," the source said about Floor 81. The whole floor was taken up with a "whole bunch of batteries" and "enclosed server racks" that were so tall that one could not see over the top of them. The enclosed server racks were locked and the only people who could open them were employees of the Shimizu Corp., he said.
Didn't the host of NIST scientists think that was worthy of mention? They either did not know that the 81st floor was full of "battery-looking things" or decided not to mention it. How odd.
Silence was all I ever received from NIST.
Then, suddenly, out of the blue, a former bank employee came forward, a person who had visited the 81st floor on a weekly basis. His information explains more than he probably thought and provides us with a major clue about what really happened on 9/11.
Fuji Bank had torn up the 81st floor, he said, and stripped it down to the bare bone to reinforce the trusses so that the floor could hold more weight. Then they had built a raised floor and filled the entire floor with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.
These units were bolted to the raised floor which stood about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. Beneath the raised floor ran the cables and power supply that connected the army of batteries. IT techies had to get down on all fours and crawl around beneath the raised floor to connect cables.
"The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.
But were they really batteries?
"It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."
...
"Nobody worked on that floor," the source said about Floor 81. The whole floor was taken up with a "whole bunch of batteries" and "enclosed server racks" that were so tall that one could not see over the top of them. The enclosed server racks were locked and the only people who could open them were employees of the Shimizu Corp., he said.
Didn't the host of NIST scientists think that was worthy of mention? They either did not know that the 81st floor was full of "battery-looking things" or decided not to mention it. How odd.
About the power down:
Interview with Scott Forbes
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...if the 81st floor was a normal office floor of Fuji Bank, why doesn't the NIST report simply say so? Silence was all I ever received from NIST. Then, suddenly, out of the blue, a former bank employee came forward, a person who had visited the 81st floor on a weekly basis. His information explains more than he probably thought and provides us with a major clue about what really happened on 9/11. Fuji Bank had torn up the 81st floor, he said, and stripped it down to the bare bone to reinforce the trusses so that the floor could hold more weight. Then they had built a raised floor and filled the entire floor with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries. These units were bolted to the raised floor which stood about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. Beneath the raised floor ran the cables and power supply that connected the army of batteries. IT techies had to get down on all fours and crawl around beneath the raised floor to connect cables. "The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said. But were they really batteries? "It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on." ... "Nobody worked on that floor," the source said about Floor 81. The whole floor was taken up with a "whole bunch of batteries" and "enclosed server racks" that were so tall that one could not see over the top of them. The enclosed server racks were locked and the only people who could open them were employees of the Shimizu Corp., he said. Didn't the host of NIST scientists think that was worthy of mention? They either did not know that the 81st floor was full of "battery-looking things" or decided not to mention it. How odd. |
About the power down:
Interview with Scott Forbes
Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower of the world trade center, witnessed a power-down of the tower in the weekend before 9/11.
"Many, many people worked on the power down, both from the IT department and from the business, revalidating systems when they were available again. Other people can validate my information. Some people do not remember the circumstances, some people will not revisit that time ... but others acknowledge the power down freely and can validate my information."
Gee an article by Christopher Bollyn, how SWEET.
In this artice he implies that besides American and United and thier mechanics, the companies located on the floors of the WTC towers that were hit by the planes and where scores of their employees died were IN ON IT.
Truely PATHETIC.
Arthur
In this artice he implies that besides American and United and thier mechanics, the companies located on the floors of the WTC towers that were hit by the planes and where scores of their employees died were IN ON IT.
Truely PATHETIC.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2007, 10:32 PM)
Gee an article by Christopher Bollyn, how SWEET.
Arthur
Now what would happen once all those batteries reacted with the concrete, oh yeah, calcium sulfate, Sodium Sulfate, and calcium chloride. plus sulfuric acid, and a huge amount of hydrogen gas. Also possibly Iron sulfate, burning Iron, and thermite from lead oxide, or Iron oxide, or Iron sulfate interacting with aluminum, from the planes.
That is really great of mr. Bollyn to provide so much evidence debunking Dr. Jones. DA.
Arthur
Now what would happen once all those batteries reacted with the concrete, oh yeah, calcium sulfate, Sodium Sulfate, and calcium chloride. plus sulfuric acid, and a huge amount of hydrogen gas. Also possibly Iron sulfate, burning Iron, and thermite from lead oxide, or Iron oxide, or Iron sulfate interacting with aluminum, from the planes.
That is really great of mr. Bollyn to provide so much evidence debunking Dr. Jones. DA.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2007, 10:32 PM)
Gee an article by Christopher Bollyn, how SWEET.
In this artice he implies that besides American and United and thier mechanics, the companies located on the floors of the WTC towers that were hit by the planes and where scores of their employees died were IN ON IT.
Truely PATHETIC.
Arthur
so, now, all the super-rich owners of the system people are holy saints, too.
i find it truly pathetic that some people think that corporate bigwigs think of their employees as people, and not merely assets, to be LIQUIDATED for the sake of the Bottom Line (the true god of america), if needs be.
i find it truly pathetic that with what we see in videos, and what we hear, and what we know about power plays and profiteering, that some people can't see the ocean because all that water is blocking the view.
In this artice he implies that besides American and United and thier mechanics, the companies located on the floors of the WTC towers that were hit by the planes and where scores of their employees died were IN ON IT.
Truely PATHETIC.
Arthur
so, now, all the super-rich owners of the system people are holy saints, too.
i find it truly pathetic that some people think that corporate bigwigs think of their employees as people, and not merely assets, to be LIQUIDATED for the sake of the Bottom Line (the true god of america), if needs be.
i find it truly pathetic that with what we see in videos, and what we hear, and what we know about power plays and profiteering, that some people can't see the ocean because all that water is blocking the view.
Back of the envelope calc using Calladine and English, supporting the plausibility of the Ross paper
What follows is a rough application of their results to a contrived variation of the Gordon Ross scenario (which, in turn, is based on Bazant Zhou), to see if his results are plausible.
Calladine and English state that the effects of Kinetic Energy scale linearly with volume. I assume constant density, and thus calculate mass ratios.* CE's experiment furthermore shows non-catastrophic bending for a Type II device in the case of a drop from .72 h, with a weight that is 41x the weight of the impacted device.
NEU-FONZE has recently stated in a physorg thread that the weight of the columns constitute about 6% of the weight of a floor (near an impact region.)
In the Bazant Zhou scenario, m(14 storeys) impacts a floor. The weight ratio, compared to CE, are:
(14x / 6%) / 71x = 3.28
Thus, we have roughly 3.28x the mass ratio tested in the CE {.72h-41x} scenario.
Furthermore, in BZ's scenario, the free fall is through a height of h, not .72h. Since gravitational potential energy is linear with height, and since no impedance is assumed for the inital free fall through height h, we have 4.56x the relative kinetic energy available in CE's experiment.
Now, we don't know how much more of an impact the device in question in CE could have withstood before failing. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that it absorbed the maximum amount possible. (In other words, with an infinitessimal amount more energy of impact, it would have failed completely).
(If this were true and if the columns of the impacted floor were fixed at the bottom of the storey, then there would have been failure of the topmost impacted storey columns.
However, while a fixed lower end matches matches the CE scenario very well, it does not match reality very well. There is no "magic wall" between column splices that fixes them in vertically in space, until such time as a collapse descends to their level.)
From Gordon Ross' paper, we see that in the time it takes for the topmost impacted floor columns to undergo their 3% shortening phase ( = .013 seconds; call this t0 ), the impact force would be felt by 16 storeys.
Now, assume that energy dissipation effects for the first t0/2 seconds are entirely confined to the topmost impacted storey. Also, assume that energy dissipation effects ala CE are entirely applicable to the next 8 storeys for the next t0/2 seconds (when the topmost storey will still be carrying it's load effectively). Finally, assume that the CE energy dissipation effects will be equally "spread" over these 8 storeys.
With these assumptions, we see that energy dissipation per storey, for these 8 storeys, is roughly
4.27x / 8 = 53% of the energy necessary for a non-catastrophic buckling.
IOW, Ross' conclusion of an arrested collapse are sustained.
(In this calc, I've ignored the energy dissipation "lost" by the topmost, impacted storey in the .2% elastic compression phase, as well as the energy lost by the topmost impacted storey during the first half of it's 3% shortening phase.)
The Calladine and English paper is not exactly applicable to the BZ/Gordon Ross scenario, because the geometries of the CE Type II apparatus is not an I-Beam or box column. Some of the references I posted recently may allow us to make a similar computation for at least box columns.
* From CE:
I do not actually consider the dimensions involved, but note that for equal density, a volume ratio will exactly equal a mass ratio. Although, in the WTC collapses, the top was not solid metal, in terms of figuring out whether catastrophic buckling would occur, it seems to me that assuming it is cannot affect results much.
What follows is a rough application of their results to a contrived variation of the Gordon Ross scenario (which, in turn, is based on Bazant Zhou), to see if his results are plausible.
Calladine and English state that the effects of Kinetic Energy scale linearly with volume. I assume constant density, and thus calculate mass ratios.* CE's experiment furthermore shows non-catastrophic bending for a Type II device in the case of a drop from .72 h, with a weight that is 41x the weight of the impacted device.
NEU-FONZE has recently stated in a physorg thread that the weight of the columns constitute about 6% of the weight of a floor (near an impact region.)
In the Bazant Zhou scenario, m(14 storeys) impacts a floor. The weight ratio, compared to CE, are:
(14x / 6%) / 71x = 3.28
Thus, we have roughly 3.28x the mass ratio tested in the CE {.72h-41x} scenario.
Furthermore, in BZ's scenario, the free fall is through a height of h, not .72h. Since gravitational potential energy is linear with height, and since no impedance is assumed for the inital free fall through height h, we have 4.56x the relative kinetic energy available in CE's experiment.
Now, we don't know how much more of an impact the device in question in CE could have withstood before failing. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that it absorbed the maximum amount possible. (In other words, with an infinitessimal amount more energy of impact, it would have failed completely).
(If this were true and if the columns of the impacted floor were fixed at the bottom of the storey, then there would have been failure of the topmost impacted storey columns.
However, while a fixed lower end matches matches the CE scenario very well, it does not match reality very well. There is no "magic wall" between column splices that fixes them in vertically in space, until such time as a collapse descends to their level.)
From Gordon Ross' paper, we see that in the time it takes for the topmost impacted floor columns to undergo their 3% shortening phase ( = .013 seconds; call this t0 ), the impact force would be felt by 16 storeys.
Now, assume that energy dissipation effects for the first t0/2 seconds are entirely confined to the topmost impacted storey. Also, assume that energy dissipation effects ala CE are entirely applicable to the next 8 storeys for the next t0/2 seconds (when the topmost storey will still be carrying it's load effectively). Finally, assume that the CE energy dissipation effects will be equally "spread" over these 8 storeys.
With these assumptions, we see that energy dissipation per storey, for these 8 storeys, is roughly
4.27x / 8 = 53% of the energy necessary for a non-catastrophic buckling.
IOW, Ross' conclusion of an arrested collapse are sustained.
(In this calc, I've ignored the energy dissipation "lost" by the topmost, impacted storey in the .2% elastic compression phase, as well as the energy lost by the topmost impacted storey during the first half of it's 3% shortening phase.)
The Calladine and English paper is not exactly applicable to the BZ/Gordon Ross scenario, because the geometries of the CE Type II apparatus is not an I-Beam or box column. Some of the references I posted recently may allow us to make a similar computation for at least box columns.
* From CE:
QUOTE
For the sake of definiteness, suppose that we have (1) a prototype structure and (2) an accurate scale model of it, made from the same material and with every linear dimension equal to beta (beta < 1) times the mass of the prototype. Let the prototype be designed to withstand an impact from a moving rigid mass having kinetic energy Omega and velocity V0. What kinetic energy and velocity should be used in testing the scale model, in order that the final deformed configuration of the model should be an exact small-scale representation of the prototype?
The kinetic energy is easily dealt with. It should be equl to (beta^^3)(Omega), so that the energy input per unit volume of material is equal to both prototype and model...
The kinetic energy is easily dealt with. It should be equl to (beta^^3)(Omega), so that the energy input per unit volume of material is equal to both prototype and model...
I do not actually consider the dimensions involved, but note that for equal density, a volume ratio will exactly equal a mass ratio. Although, in the WTC collapses, the top was not solid metal, in terms of figuring out whether catastrophic buckling would occur, it seems to me that assuming it is cannot affect results much.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 14 2007, 11:09 PM)
so, now, all the super-rich owners of the system people are holy saints, too.
i find it truly pathetic that some people think that corporate bigwigs think of their employees as people, and not merely assets, to be LIQUIDATED for the sake of the Bottom Line (the true god of america), if needs be.
i find it truly pathetic that with what we see in videos, and what we hear, and what we know about power plays and profiteering, that some people can't see the ocean because all that water is blocking the view.
Or maybe people see mermaids in Manatees.
Looks can be deceiving and people tend to see what they wish to see.
Dear Newton please at least propose a cogitative theory on a method where it could be done not a fantasy.
i find it truly pathetic that some people think that corporate bigwigs think of their employees as people, and not merely assets, to be LIQUIDATED for the sake of the Bottom Line (the true god of america), if needs be.
i find it truly pathetic that with what we see in videos, and what we hear, and what we know about power plays and profiteering, that some people can't see the ocean because all that water is blocking the view.
Or maybe people see mermaids in Manatees.
Looks can be deceiving and people tend to see what they wish to see.
Dear Newton please at least propose a cogitative theory on a method where it could be done not a fantasy.
metamars --- Of some interest, but not relevant to the towers where the columns were not concentrically axial at collapse initiation. Roughly speaking, the bottoms of the core columns in the top block descended onto the concrete floor. And symmetrically.
A better fit to the data for WTC 1 is to assume an approximately constant (1/3)g resistive force, at all times.
I recommend
G.J. Simitses & D.H. Hodges
Fundamentals of Structural Stability
which ought to be available to you from a good engineering lending library.
A better fit to the data for WTC 1 is to assume an approximately constant (1/3)g resistive force, at all times.
I recommend
G.J. Simitses & D.H. Hodges
Fundamentals of Structural Stability
which ought to be available to you from a good engineering lending library.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 14 2007, 01:39 PM)
notsoquickandbraindead
Everything you have ever posted has been shown to be a lie, only your complete lack of integrity allows you to show your face around here. That's OK, be as dishonest and mendaceous as you like, just don't for a second make the mistake of thinking you are fooling anyone but yourself(and maybe a few of your tin hat wearing comrades).
Grumpy
Grumpy has to throw his two cents in all the time, poor little feller.
Have you noticed he also likes to call people liars a lot, which is, BTW, the hallmark of a less-than-average shill.
But that's sure a nice picture you got there of that fire truck's reflection in the rear window of that car, Grumpy! Thanks!
I have doubts about the complete veracity of the Christopher Bollyn report. First of all, internally, it is wrong to state that the floor was completely covered with batteries and then go on to add that there were tall server racks as well. Come on...
Assuming that the entire floor was devoted to the servers and batteries, perhaps about 1/4 of the floor space was devoted to the batteries. However, if the NIST floor plan for floor 81 is correct, it seems to me more reasonable that just one room, on the north side, was devoted to the batteries.
After all, stories do tend to grow in the telling...
Assuming that the entire floor was devoted to the servers and batteries, perhaps about 1/4 of the floor space was devoted to the batteries. However, if the NIST floor plan for floor 81 is correct, it seems to me more reasonable that just one room, on the north side, was devoted to the batteries.
After all, stories do tend to grow in the telling...
None of the available combustibles could achieve those temperatures, correct?
Incorrect..
Incorrect..
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 14 2007, 03:16 PM)
{to Grumpy}
You can tell how weak his arguments are by the amount of SCRIPTURE he quotes.
Too bad he ignores one of the key ones: "thou shalt not lie".
Arthur
Cool. I've got you both together for this.
Neither of you came up with an answer or defense to the video presented (gee, how predictable was that?).
No answer means you lose...and 9/11 WAS an inside job.
You got that, doc, grumpy?
Good -- be sure to tell your buddy, dopey.
BUT HE TURNED AND SAID TO PETER
GET BEHIND ME SATAN
YOU ARE A STUMBLING BLOCK TO ME
FOR YOU ARE NOT SETTING YOUR MIND ON GOD'S INTERESTS BUT MAN'S
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 14 2007, 11:56 PM)
None of the available combustibles could achieve those temperatures, correct?
Incorrect..
What temperatures and where?
Incorrect..
What temperatures and where?
Hi David:
This is something I am working on. It's all about chemistry, as Chainsaw will tell you!
Sorry to be so cryptic but that's how it is these days....
Frank
This is something I am working on. It's all about chemistry, as Chainsaw will tell you!
Sorry to be so cryptic but that's how it is these days....
Frank
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 14 2007, 06:35 PM)
that's sure a nice picture you got there of that fire truck's reflection in the rear window of that car, Grumpy! Thanks!
Please, Quick, continue to TRUMPET this ALL OVER THE INTERNET.
Nothing makes the CTers look MORE FOOLISH then a FOOL.
Arthur
Please, Quick, continue to TRUMPET this ALL OVER THE INTERNET.
Nothing makes the CTers look MORE FOOLISH then a FOOL.
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 14 2007, 11:30 PM)
metamars --- Of some interest, but not relevant to the towers where the columns were not concentrically axial at collapse initiation. Roughly speaking, the bottoms of the core columns in the top block descended onto the concrete floor. And symmetrically.
A better fit to the data for WTC 1 is to assume an approximately constant (1/3)g resistive force, at all times.
I recommend
G.J. Simitses & D.H. Hodges
Fundamentals of Structural Stability
which ought to be available to you from a good engineering lending library.
if the falling columns hit the floor, so do the tops of the bottom columns hit the bottom of the upper floors, effectively doubling your imaginary paltry resistance.
i also feel you pulled the 1/3g figure out of thin air.
also, they would not fall symmetrically. one 'cap' had a twenty-something degree tilt.
it is typical of OCTs to idealize the mathematical conditions to match one aspect of the observed collapse, while ignoring the other implications of their (false) assumptions. ie., when the cap is leaning as it falls, there is NO WEIGHT on the other side of the tower. it should of continued to spin off the edge as a continuation of the angular momentum. however, each floor blew out symmetrically, allowing the tilted cap to begin dropping straight down, even though the collapse was supposedly asymmetric.
nice work, metamars. you make nice meat and potatoes.
A better fit to the data for WTC 1 is to assume an approximately constant (1/3)g resistive force, at all times.
I recommend
G.J. Simitses & D.H. Hodges
Fundamentals of Structural Stability
which ought to be available to you from a good engineering lending library.
if the falling columns hit the floor, so do the tops of the bottom columns hit the bottom of the upper floors, effectively doubling your imaginary paltry resistance.
i also feel you pulled the 1/3g figure out of thin air.
also, they would not fall symmetrically. one 'cap' had a twenty-something degree tilt.
it is typical of OCTs to idealize the mathematical conditions to match one aspect of the observed collapse, while ignoring the other implications of their (false) assumptions. ie., when the cap is leaning as it falls, there is NO WEIGHT on the other side of the tower. it should of continued to spin off the edge as a continuation of the angular momentum. however, each floor blew out symmetrically, allowing the tilted cap to begin dropping straight down, even though the collapse was supposedly asymmetric.
nice work, metamars. you make nice meat and potatoes.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 15 2007, 12:16 AM)
Hi David:
This is something I am working on. It's all about chemistry, as Chainsaw will tell you!
Sorry to be so cryptic but that's how it is these days....
Frank
Chemistry is the Key to life Frank, that is what most people do not consider.
You can not live without Chemistry.
This is something I am working on. It's all about chemistry, as Chainsaw will tell you!
Sorry to be so cryptic but that's how it is these days....
Frank
Chemistry is the Key to life Frank, that is what most people do not consider.
You can not live without Chemistry.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 15 2007, 12:19 AM)
if the falling columns hit the floor, so do the tops of the bottom columns hit the bottom of the upper floors, effectively doubling your imaginary paltry resistance.
i also feel you pulled the 1/3g figure out of thin air.
also, they would not fall symmetrically. one 'cap' had a twenty-something degree tilt.
So do... Yes, that is what I meant by symmetrically. But twice a paltry resistance is still paltry.
(1/3)g comes directly from NEU-FONZE's measurements of WTC 1. If you don't believe this you are at liberty to actually do some work to make your own stop-frame measurements. I recommend consulting with NEU-FONZE about the trickier aspects.
Yes, a one-dimensional model only takes the most important aspects into account. While important for collapse initiation, the tilt no longer relevant for the first few seconds for which there are measurements.
NEU-FONZE has previously posted a reference where you might read about why the tilt and rotation ceases.
However, in the case of WTC 2, with the top block being so far askew, shagster has done useful work which demonstrates that much of the top block must have fallen apart and off the bottom portion. Too much dust to see any details, but his line of reasoning, together with observations, are convincing.
i also feel you pulled the 1/3g figure out of thin air.
also, they would not fall symmetrically. one 'cap' had a twenty-something degree tilt.
So do... Yes, that is what I meant by symmetrically. But twice a paltry resistance is still paltry.
(1/3)g comes directly from NEU-FONZE's measurements of WTC 1. If you don't believe this you are at liberty to actually do some work to make your own stop-frame measurements. I recommend consulting with NEU-FONZE about the trickier aspects.
Yes, a one-dimensional model only takes the most important aspects into account. While important for collapse initiation, the tilt no longer relevant for the first few seconds for which there are measurements.
NEU-FONZE has previously posted a reference where you might read about why the tilt and rotation ceases.
However, in the case of WTC 2, with the top block being so far askew, shagster has done useful work which demonstrates that much of the top block must have fallen apart and off the bottom portion. Too much dust to see any details, but his line of reasoning, together with observations, are convincing.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 14 2007, 11:30 PM)
metamars --- Of some interest, but not relevant to the towers where the columns were not concentrically axial at collapse initiation. Roughly speaking, the bottoms of the core columns in the top block descended onto the concrete floor.
Have you shared this news with Professor Bazant? How about NIST, that referred to BZ as justification for not (publicly) analyzing the collapse, proper?
And symmetrically.
I assume you mean asymetrically.
I assume you mean asymetrically.
A better fit to the data for WTC 1 is to assume an approximately constant (1/3)g resistive force, at all times.
Wouldn't it be better to show a resistive force, which averages out to (1/3)g, from first principles? We're not talking black holes and celestial mechanics, here. In such a scenario, where one is confident that normal gravitational theory will tell you what you need to know about the situation, it would be quite proper to work backwards from a known (i.e., measured) acceleration. In this case, where there are so many more variables and unknowns, working backwards makes no sense - not to me, anyways.
While I expect an 'exact' answer to be intractable without computer modeling, assuming what most people would take as something that needs to be proved suggests you are not seeking an explanation, as much as scientistic description.
We all know the buildings fell down. We also know that they did so quickly, and videos should allow us to determine approximate accelerations. Nothing controverial in these two sentences. But the context of this thread is to discriminate between CD and non-CD.
I recommend
G.J. Simitses & D.H. Hodges
Fundamentals of Structural Stability
which ought to be available to you from a good engineering lending library.
No thanks - I need to focus on physics proper. After I move, again....
Fortunately, more and more of the "big boys" are getting interested in the problem, which was always my goal. (At least after I realized that simple physics wouldn't suffice. OTOH, the intriguing paper by Charles Beck suggests that maybe I am wrong on this point.) Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth should be online in a few weeks, maybe they will debate with you.
You will doubtless learn more from them than you ever could from me.
Have you shared this news with Professor Bazant? How about NIST, that referred to BZ as justification for not (publicly) analyzing the collapse, proper?
QUOTE
And symmetrically.
I assume you mean asymetrically.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And symmetrically. |
I assume you mean asymetrically.
A better fit to the data for WTC 1 is to assume an approximately constant (1/3)g resistive force, at all times.
Wouldn't it be better to show a resistive force, which averages out to (1/3)g, from first principles? We're not talking black holes and celestial mechanics, here. In such a scenario, where one is confident that normal gravitational theory will tell you what you need to know about the situation, it would be quite proper to work backwards from a known (i.e., measured) acceleration. In this case, where there are so many more variables and unknowns, working backwards makes no sense - not to me, anyways.
While I expect an 'exact' answer to be intractable without computer modeling, assuming what most people would take as something that needs to be proved suggests you are not seeking an explanation, as much as scientistic description.
We all know the buildings fell down. We also know that they did so quickly, and videos should allow us to determine approximate accelerations. Nothing controverial in these two sentences. But the context of this thread is to discriminate between CD and non-CD.
QUOTE
I recommend
G.J. Simitses & D.H. Hodges
Fundamentals of Structural Stability
which ought to be available to you from a good engineering lending library.
No thanks - I need to focus on physics proper. After I move, again....
Fortunately, more and more of the "big boys" are getting interested in the problem, which was always my goal. (At least after I realized that simple physics wouldn't suffice. OTOH, the intriguing paper by Charles Beck suggests that maybe I am wrong on this point.) Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth should be online in a few weeks, maybe they will debate with you.
You will doubtless learn more from them than you ever could from me.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 14 2007, 05:49 PM)
Capracus, the point of the "9/11 Eyewitness" segment I pointed you to is based upon the SCIENTIFIC SOUND ANALYSIS, and yet you write:
Are you making this up as you go along?
Did you watch the ~15min segment I pointed you to?
If you haven't, don't come back until you do.
If you have, explain the evidence.
Link "9/11 Eyewitness" video & sound evidence of the explosions that corroborate the demolition of the North Tower; go to the 44-minute 25-second mark {~15 mins in length}:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...1+Eyewitness%22
The explosions, scientifically examined via sound analyses, are prime indicators of controlled demolition, especially when you consider the timing of their occurrence.
Why does this have to be repeated?
ALL OCTs INVITED TO REFUTE THIS {except you won't be able to}.
Your right Craig, I didn't analyze the 15 minute segment as closely as I should have. After looking at other versions of the same video, I found out that the radio broadcast was being played over a radio at the Hoboken location, I assumed that it was dubbed in like the camera shake video. That said, it still doesn't show the origin of the sounds heard at the Hoboken site. Like I assumed an origin for sounds, the makers of this video are doing the same thing. There were fighter jets flying in the area which could have caused sonic booms, or some other source in the Hoboken area could have caused the sounds.
Now that I have taken a second look at your video, have you bothered to look at the video segment that I referred you to?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...inute+wtc&hl=en
At 19:38 in this video the north tower begins to collapses. If you go back one minute and listen all the way up to the collapse you'll notice that there are no signs of explosions or sounds of explosions. How do you explain this discrepancy in relation to the Hoboken video? This video was shot within 2000 feet of the towers, not two miles away in New Jersey. Take your own advice and don't reply until you check out this video.
And then there is the unedited camera shake video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...+collapse&hl=en
Where are the sounds of explosions in this video?
Are you making this up as you go along?
Did you watch the ~15min segment I pointed you to?
If you haven't, don't come back until you do.
If you have, explain the evidence.
Link "9/11 Eyewitness" video & sound evidence of the explosions that corroborate the demolition of the North Tower; go to the 44-minute 25-second mark {~15 mins in length}:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...1+Eyewitness%22
The explosions, scientifically examined via sound analyses, are prime indicators of controlled demolition, especially when you consider the timing of their occurrence.
Why does this have to be repeated?
ALL OCTs INVITED TO REFUTE THIS {except you won't be able to}.
Your right Craig, I didn't analyze the 15 minute segment as closely as I should have. After looking at other versions of the same video, I found out that the radio broadcast was being played over a radio at the Hoboken location, I assumed that it was dubbed in like the camera shake video. That said, it still doesn't show the origin of the sounds heard at the Hoboken site. Like I assumed an origin for sounds, the makers of this video are doing the same thing. There were fighter jets flying in the area which could have caused sonic booms, or some other source in the Hoboken area could have caused the sounds.
Now that I have taken a second look at your video, have you bothered to look at the video segment that I referred you to?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...inute+wtc&hl=en
At 19:38 in this video the north tower begins to collapses. If you go back one minute and listen all the way up to the collapse you'll notice that there are no signs of explosions or sounds of explosions. How do you explain this discrepancy in relation to the Hoboken video? This video was shot within 2000 feet of the towers, not two miles away in New Jersey. Take your own advice and don't reply until you check out this video.
And then there is the unedited camera shake video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...+collapse&hl=en
Where are the sounds of explosions in this video?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 15 2007, 12:04 AM)
What temperatures and where?
The temperatures to Melt steel, and cause off gassing to of the carbon Monoxide, forming the particles. That are supposed to be from thermite!
I would tell you more, but this is a really complicated problem.
Plus I think Frank since he is actually working hard on this should be the one to clue you in, when he is ready.
The temperatures to Melt steel, and cause off gassing to of the carbon Monoxide, forming the particles. That are supposed to be from thermite!
I would tell you more, but this is a really complicated problem.
Plus I think Frank since he is actually working hard on this should be the one to clue you in, when he is ready.
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 15 2007, 12:31 AM)
Wouldn't it be better to show a resistive force, which averages out to (1/3)g, from first principles? We're not talking black holes and celestial mechanics, here. In such a scenario, where one is confident that normal gravitational theory will tell you what you need to know about the situation, it would be quite proper to work backwards from a known (i.e., measured) acceleration. In this case, where there are so many more variables and unknowns, working backwards makes no sense - not to me, anyways.
NIST certainly knows about the tilt of the top blocks.
By symmetrically, I meant that the top portions of the core columns in the bottom block also impacted concrete. See my just prior reply to newton.
What do you mean by 'working backwards'? In more detail, I mean.
The first puzzling aspect is that a resistive force of about (1/3)g works about as well for the first measurement at 0.2 seconds as for the entire 3 seconds of measurements, and also 0.4 seconds, etc.
So far all I can do is say that the collapse of WTC 1 consumed about 330 J/kg which gives the approximately (1/3)g resistive force. What shagster and I both worked out is that disconnecting the trusses floors represents only about 0.4%, yes, only four-tenths of a percent, of that energy. Then there are several other energy consumption paths to consider, concrete comminution, connection breaking, etc.
So I just lump all this into an averaged 'resistive force'. Is that what you meant by 'scientific description'?
NIST certainly knows about the tilt of the top blocks.
By symmetrically, I meant that the top portions of the core columns in the bottom block also impacted concrete. See my just prior reply to newton.
What do you mean by 'working backwards'? In more detail, I mean.
The first puzzling aspect is that a resistive force of about (1/3)g works about as well for the first measurement at 0.2 seconds as for the entire 3 seconds of measurements, and also 0.4 seconds, etc.
So far all I can do is say that the collapse of WTC 1 consumed about 330 J/kg which gives the approximately (1/3)g resistive force. What shagster and I both worked out is that disconnecting the trusses floors represents only about 0.4%, yes, only four-tenths of a percent, of that energy. Then there are several other energy consumption paths to consider, concrete comminution, connection breaking, etc.
So I just lump all this into an averaged 'resistive force'. Is that what you meant by 'scientific description'?
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 15 2007, 12:47 AM)
Your right Craig, I didn't analyze the 15 minute segment as closely as I should have. After looking at other versions of the same video, I found out that the radio broadcast was being played over a radio at the Hoboken location, I assumed that it was dubbed in like the camera shake video. That said, it still doesn't show the origin of the sounds heard at the Hoboken site. Like I assumed an origin for sounds, the makers of this video are doing the same thing. There were fighter jets flying in the area which could have caused sonic booms, or some other source in the Hoboken area could have caused the sounds.
Now that I have taken a second look at your video, have you bothered to look at the video segment that I referred you to?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...inute+wtc&hl=en
At 19:38 in this video the north tower begins to collapses. If you go back one minute and listen all the way up to the collapse you'll notice that there are no signs of explosions or sounds of explosions. How do you explain this discrepancy in relation to the Hoboken video? This video was shot within 2000 feet of the towers, not two miles away in New Jersey. Take your own advice and don't reply until you check out this video.
And then there is the unedited camera shake video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...+collapse&hl=en
Where are the sounds of explosions in this video?
I hope I am never in a building where there is a fire and molten aluminum and a jet fly by Supersonic, I have seen what supersonic shock waves can do to it, I never want to see that again.
Burning balls of White hot metal are pretty, but you do not want to touch them, and with Aluminum they can give you a good sun tan, all the way to the bone.
Although I doubt the jets actually did anything to it, after seeing what I have seen I never want to risk that again.
Now that I have taken a second look at your video, have you bothered to look at the video segment that I referred you to?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...inute+wtc&hl=en
At 19:38 in this video the north tower begins to collapses. If you go back one minute and listen all the way up to the collapse you'll notice that there are no signs of explosions or sounds of explosions. How do you explain this discrepancy in relation to the Hoboken video? This video was shot within 2000 feet of the towers, not two miles away in New Jersey. Take your own advice and don't reply until you check out this video.
And then there is the unedited camera shake video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...+collapse&hl=en
Where are the sounds of explosions in this video?
I hope I am never in a building where there is a fire and molten aluminum and a jet fly by Supersonic, I have seen what supersonic shock waves can do to it, I never want to see that again.
Burning balls of White hot metal are pretty, but you do not want to touch them, and with Aluminum they can give you a good sun tan, all the way to the bone.
Although I doubt the jets actually did anything to it, after seeing what I have seen I never want to risk that again.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 14 2007, 09:30 PM)
kahlmyishmael
Anyone can obtain a copy and read that report all they like. It is not as accurate or as scientifically useful as the NIST reports. But I could care less if anyone reads it, just try to understand what it really says and not twist the words to try to change their meaning, as you tend to do. That is just stupidity in service to el Queda and Ben Laden, and a huge injustice to the innocent, loyal Americans you so blithely accuse of treasonous acts.
Grumpy
Ahhhh...but IT WAS just as easy for you to hit the "quote" command button as it was to hit the "add reply" command button.
You did not want the readership to associate the "intellectual dishonesty" you were about to engage in...
...with the actual words you were denying there for all to read.
Anyone can obtain a copy and read that report all they like. It is not as accurate or as scientifically useful as the NIST reports. But I could care less if anyone reads it, just try to understand what it really says and not twist the words to try to change their meaning, as you tend to do. That is just stupidity in service to el Queda and Ben Laden, and a huge injustice to the innocent, loyal Americans you so blithely accuse of treasonous acts.
Grumpy
Ahhhh...but IT WAS just as easy for you to hit the "quote" command button as it was to hit the "add reply" command button.
You did not want the readership to associate the "intellectual dishonesty" you were about to engage in...
...with the actual words you were denying there for all to read.
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.