QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 23 2007, 08:55 PM)
My understanding is that the floor pans were only 22 gauge steel. That thin, the pans would have been shredded by a variety of materials. The shredded steel bits then might well give off sparks (microspheres?) when struck by harder substances.
yeah. therein lies the 'rub'.
the ONLY way to make metal spheres is by cooling molten metal in a weightless environment.
do sparks from welding all end up as little spheres?
and, more importantly, how can they be produced in such a chaotic 'crush up/crush down' enviroment, hardly weightless at all, with all those constant momentum transfers. we should expect many different shapes of particles if they were created in this environment alone.
however, as far as i know, only spheres are being discussed, and that would mean molten drops freezing while they are falling through empty space.
yeah. therein lies the 'rub'.
the ONLY way to make metal spheres is by cooling molten metal in a weightless environment.
do sparks from welding all end up as little spheres?
and, more importantly, how can they be produced in such a chaotic 'crush up/crush down' enviroment, hardly weightless at all, with all those constant momentum transfers. we should expect many different shapes of particles if they were created in this environment alone.
however, as far as i know, only spheres are being discussed, and that would mean molten drops freezing while they are falling through empty space.
Friction is an interesting possibility...
I found this article recently: S. N. Chillrud et al. "Steel Dust in the New York City Subway System as a Source of Manganese, Chromium and Iron Exposures for Transit Workers." Journal of Urban Health 82 (1), 33, (2005).
In this article the authors describe how they found Fe, Mn and Cr enriched in subway air compared to outdoor air samples. Their conclusion was: "Steel dust may be rendered airborne by friction erosion of subway rails, wheels and brushes."
HOWEVER, the dust samples collected in this study were fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in mean diameter (so-called PM 2.5 particles). I doubt that you could get spherical metal particles larger than 10 microns by frictional erosion.
I found this article recently: S. N. Chillrud et al. "Steel Dust in the New York City Subway System as a Source of Manganese, Chromium and Iron Exposures for Transit Workers." Journal of Urban Health 82 (1), 33, (2005).
In this article the authors describe how they found Fe, Mn and Cr enriched in subway air compared to outdoor air samples. Their conclusion was: "Steel dust may be rendered airborne by friction erosion of subway rails, wheels and brushes."
HOWEVER, the dust samples collected in this study were fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in mean diameter (so-called PM 2.5 particles). I doubt that you could get spherical metal particles larger than 10 microns by frictional erosion.
QUOTE (newton+May 23 2007, 09:21 PM)
however, as far as i know, only spheres are being discussed, and that would mean molten drops freezing while they are falling through empty space.
Not the only way. Read something about sonochemistry, where ultrasound is used to help make microspheres. Also, go back and read how poster Chainsaw, made his...
Not the only way. Read something about sonochemistry, where ultrasound is used to help make microspheres. Also, go back and read how poster Chainsaw, made his...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 23 2007, 09:41 PM)
Not the only way. Read something about sonochemistry, where ultrasound is used to help make microspheres. Also, go back and read how poster Chainsaw, made his...
well, without reading about sonochemistry, i already know about standing waves at resonant frequencies(redundancy is okay when discussing resonance resonance), and how they can shape liquids.
it requires highly specific conditions, and with all the energy chaos of a tower collapse, i think i will modify my statement to be, 'the only way during the collapse'.
semantics noted noted.
well, without reading about sonochemistry, i already know about standing waves at resonant frequencies(redundancy is okay when discussing resonance resonance), and how they can shape liquids.
it requires highly specific conditions, and with all the energy chaos of a tower collapse, i think i will modify my statement to be, 'the only way during the collapse'.
semantics noted noted.
QUOTE (newton+May 23 2007, 08:42 PM)
QUOTE (einsteen+ May 23 2007, 08:09 PM)
Friction ?
well, there was bound to be friction, fer sure. but does banging i-beams together create spheroids?
does the word 'recommendations' ring a bell?
so, what is it, NIST? you are 'recommending' that there is no difference between well tied, and not well-tied, and you are talking about the core failing first, which is not what your report says. your report says the perimeter wall failed first, not the core.
if the hat truss was transferring support from the perimeter to the core, with the perimeter holding the CORE UP, and it was the core that was weakest, well....WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE TWENTY MILLION!? why does you report say it was because the outside wall was pulled in, yet you are clearly saying here it was a failure of the core that allowed collapse.
oh, this tiny web ye w3ave.
p.s. in my humongous opinion, well-tied is OBVIOUSLY better, and i'll give that recommendation up for free.
so, what is it, NIST? you are 'recommending' that there is no difference between well tied, and not well-tied,
What part of THIS:
DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Arthur
well, there was bound to be friction, fer sure. but does banging i-beams together create spheroids?
Friction between metal surfaces does create spherical particles.
http://www.practicingoilanalysis.com/artic...oup=OilAnalysis
http://www.practicingoilanalysis.com/artic...oup=OilAnalysis
QUOTE (newton+May 23 2007, 09:47 PM)
... 'the only way during the collapse'.
Chainsaw,'s methods weren't chaotic enough for you?
Capracus --- That was a good find. Spheres less than 3 microns via the crack rolling process in fatigue cracks and larger than 10 microns via natural welding inside the bearing.
Chainsaw,'s methods weren't chaotic enough for you?
Capracus --- That was a good find. Spheres less than 3 microns via the crack rolling process in fatigue cracks and larger than 10 microns via natural welding inside the bearing.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 23 2007, 10:11 PM)
Chainsaw,'s methods weren't chaotic enough for you?
Capracus --- That was a good find. Spheres less than 3 microns via the crack rolling process in fatigue cracks and larger than 10 microns via natural welding inside the bearing.
actually, his results weren't spherey enough for me, and i find his 'fitting data to conclusions' a little too NISTian. his experiments are ALWAYSAaimed at trying to 'prove' the official lie.
but, to be fair, i am simply debating heresay. i do not 'know'(like you can really know anything at all), how the two(chainsaw/actual samples) compare, what the distribution in the debris was like, how spherey spherey is, particle sizes, composition, etc.
i do know i saw waves of demolition travelling down the inside of the building, faster than metal debris on the outside falling through air. i figger, the explosives used would be good at making spheroids, as they would throw molten particles every which way.
i have proven something physically impossible by the official explanantion. that is enough for me.
Capracus --- That was a good find. Spheres less than 3 microns via the crack rolling process in fatigue cracks and larger than 10 microns via natural welding inside the bearing.
actually, his results weren't spherey enough for me, and i find his 'fitting data to conclusions' a little too NISTian. his experiments are ALWAYSAaimed at trying to 'prove' the official lie.
but, to be fair, i am simply debating heresay. i do not 'know'(like you can really know anything at all), how the two(chainsaw/actual samples) compare, what the distribution in the debris was like, how spherey spherey is, particle sizes, composition, etc.
i do know i saw waves of demolition travelling down the inside of the building, faster than metal debris on the outside falling through air. i figger, the explosives used would be good at making spheroids, as they would throw molten particles every which way.
i have proven something physically impossible by the official explanantion. that is enough for me.
QUOTE (newton+May 23 2007, 10:47 PM)
i do know i saw waves of demolition travelling[sic] down the inside of the building, faster than metal debris on the outside falling through air.
Things are seldom what they seem,
skim milk masquerades as cream.
-- Gilbert & Sullivan
Until you conduct, and report, some actual, carefully done measurements, your statement remains completely subjective and not in accord with what anyone else sees and what NEU-FONZE actually, carefully, measured.
Maybe new spectacles will help?
Things are seldom what they seem,
skim milk masquerades as cream.
-- Gilbert & Sullivan
Until you conduct, and report, some actual, carefully done measurements, your statement remains completely subjective and not in accord with what anyone else sees and what NEU-FONZE actually, carefully, measured.
Maybe new spectacles will help?
QUOTE (Capracus+May 23 2007, 09:58 PM)
well, there was bound to be friction, fer sure. but does banging i-beams together create spheroids?[/QUOTE]Friction between metal surfaces does create spherical particles.
http://www.practicingoilanalysis.com/artic...oup=OilAnalysis
But also in the amount observed ? And are they the same kind as the observed ones ? Forgive me but those stories about the metal in the basement, I hear so many different opinions and testimonies. What's true and what is not true ? I even have no idea how to know if information is wrong or not.
http://www.practicingoilanalysis.com/artic...oup=OilAnalysis
But also in the amount observed ? And are they the same kind as the observed ones ? Forgive me but those stories about the metal in the basement, I hear so many different opinions and testimonies. What's true and what is not true ? I even have no idea how to know if information is wrong or not.
QUOTE (einsteen+May 23 2007, 11:16 PM)
... those stories about the metal in the basement, ...
I assume you mean molten metal.
Yes, some was observed dripping down a wall by an engineer looking at damage inside WTC 6. This was almost certainly a low melting temperature substance such as lead.
Controlled Demolition, Inc., was brought in specifically to deal with the, about 20, pieces of red hot steel. They did not find any molten steel. See the Blanchard report.
The visual posted many places of a yellow-hot something with stuff dripping off it (often stated to be 'molten steel') is most probably lava-hot rock wool, insulation (although it might also be almost-molten glass).
I have seen a visual of a beam which appeared to have been sufficiently heated to have deformed into a slightly 'melted' looking shape. Given the pressures and temperatures in Ground Zero, this is no surprise either.
I assume you mean molten metal.
Yes, some was observed dripping down a wall by an engineer looking at damage inside WTC 6. This was almost certainly a low melting temperature substance such as lead.
Controlled Demolition, Inc., was brought in specifically to deal with the, about 20, pieces of red hot steel. They did not find any molten steel. See the Blanchard report.
The visual posted many places of a yellow-hot something with stuff dripping off it (often stated to be 'molten steel') is most probably lava-hot rock wool, insulation (although it might also be almost-molten glass).
I have seen a visual of a beam which appeared to have been sufficiently heated to have deformed into a slightly 'melted' looking shape. Given the pressures and temperatures in Ground Zero, this is no surprise either.
QUOTE (newton+May 23 2007, 10:47 PM)
his experiments are ALWAYSAaimed[sic] at ...
Actually, his fascinating experiments have demonstrated the point also made by NEU-FONZE: NIST failed to consider (at least in the NCSTAR1 report) any of several possible chemical reactions which would
(1) make the more severe fire scenario even more certain,
(2) better explain the strange stuff found in the dust (although this wasn't NIST goal).
Actually, his fascinating experiments have demonstrated the point also made by NEU-FONZE: NIST failed to consider (at least in the NCSTAR1 report) any of several possible chemical reactions which would
(1) make the more severe fire scenario even more certain,
(2) better explain the strange stuff found in the dust (although this wasn't NIST goal).
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 23 2007, 11:50 PM)
Actually, his fascinating experiments have demonstrated the point also made by NEU-FONZE: NIST failed to consider (at least in the NCSTAR1 report) any of several possible chemical reactions which would
(1) make the more severe fire scenario even more certain,
(2) better explain the strange stuff found in the dust (although this wasn't NIST goal).
well, i think the goal of NIST was to determine how they could improve on ANY weakness in tower design. that would include chemical brews, if they were being thorough, and obviously they were not thorough.
and, if they were good little PUBLICally funded scientists, all of their data would be PUBLIshed for the PUBLIC, and not just their conclusions and select data.
however, this body(NIST) is nothing more than a tom sawyer whitewash job.
(1) make the more severe fire scenario even more certain,
(2) better explain the strange stuff found in the dust (although this wasn't NIST goal).
well, i think the goal of NIST was to determine how they could improve on ANY weakness in tower design. that would include chemical brews, if they were being thorough, and obviously they were not thorough.
and, if they were good little PUBLICally funded scientists, all of their data would be PUBLIshed for the PUBLIC, and not just their conclusions and select data.
however, this body(NIST) is nothing more than a tom sawyer whitewash job.
QUOTE (newton+May 23 2007, 11:58 PM)
well, i think the goal of NIST was to determine how they could improve on ANY weakness in tower design.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 24 2007, 12:06 AM)
does the word 'recommendations' ring a bell?
QUOTE (newton+May 24 2007, 12:12 AM)
does the word 'recommendations' ring a bell?
Recommend improving a weakness?
Making it still weaker?
NIST states their goals quite early on in the report. Go read it.
Recommend improving a weakness?
Making it still weaker?
NIST states their goals quite early on in the report. Go read it.
Looks like the Purdue group finished their computer simulation/study:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm
purdue pdf
purdue video
Unfortunately it only covers the initial plane impact, not the global collapse...
Some interesting visualizations though.
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm
purdue pdf
purdue video
Unfortunately it only covers the initial plane impact, not the global collapse...
Some interesting visualizations though.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 24 2007, 12:32 AM)
Recommend improving a weakness?
Making it still weaker?
NIST states their goals quite early on in the report. Go read it.
recommendations to improve designs which would help prevent global runaway collapse.
i did read it, a long time ago.
it seems you've taken to petty semantics lately.
there, now i've read it again more recently.
it seems they achieved none of their goals.
but, whatever. everyone's entitled to their own delusion.
Making it still weaker?
NIST states their goals quite early on in the report. Go read it.
recommendations to improve designs which would help prevent global runaway collapse.
i did read it, a long time ago.
it seems you've taken to petty semantics lately.
QUOTE
What are the goals of NIST’s investigation of the World Trade Center disaster?
The goals are to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The investigation will serve as the basis for:
* improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
* improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
* revisions to building and fire codes, standards, and practices; and
* improved public safety.
The goals are to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The investigation will serve as the basis for:
* improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
* improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
* revisions to building and fire codes, standards, and practices; and
* improved public safety.
there, now i've read it again more recently.
it seems they achieved none of their goals.
but, whatever. everyone's entitled to their own delusion.
QUOTE (newton+May 24 2007, 01:42 AM)
it seems they achieved none of their goals.
Of the four points, the first and third have certainly been accomplished. You just haven't bothered to read about it...
Of the four points, the first and third have certainly been accomplished. You just haven't bothered to read about it...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 24 2007, 01:52 AM)
Of the four points, the first and third have certainly been accomplished. You just haven't bothered to read about it...
i didn't bother to read a lot of stuff. only because there are only so many hours in a day.
still, even you have just admitted they weren't thorough, and only achieved a 50% score on their paper.
i left the 'objectives' list out, too...
bullet one: fail
bullet two: huh?
bullet three: pass (YAY!)
bullet four: nada
the NIST went to great effort to obfuscate, er, explain the collapse INITIATION mechanics. and yet, we see little in the way of suggestions for improvement in codes and standards, and NOTHING in the way of collapse propogation.
i didn't bother to read a lot of stuff. only because there are only so many hours in a day.
still, even you have just admitted they weren't thorough, and only achieved a 50% score on their paper.
i left the 'objectives' list out, too...
QUOTE
What are the main objectives of the investigation?
The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the WTC disaster are to determine:
* why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
* why the injuries and fatalities were so low or high depending on location (by studying all technical aspects of fire protection, evacuation, and occupant behavior and emergency response);
* the procedures and practices that were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the WTC Buildings; and
* which building and fire codes, standards, and practices warrant revision and are still in use.
The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the WTC disaster are to determine:
* why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
* why the injuries and fatalities were so low or high depending on location (by studying all technical aspects of fire protection, evacuation, and occupant behavior and emergency response);
* the procedures and practices that were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the WTC Buildings; and
* which building and fire codes, standards, and practices warrant revision and are still in use.
bullet one: fail
bullet two: huh?
bullet three: pass (YAY!)
bullet four: nada
the NIST went to great effort to obfuscate, er, explain the collapse INITIATION mechanics. and yet, we see little in the way of suggestions for improvement in codes and standards, and NOTHING in the way of collapse propogation.
Here is an ARUP presentation given Sept 2005.
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6Lane.pdf
From the report:
Some context
• Commercially unacceptable now to build tall without addressing extreme events
• Demand for information and knowledge has been unprecedented
• High-rise building design and expectation from this design has changed - and did so very quickly
• Current trend in London is “are you compliant with NIST”
While they don't totally agree with NIST's model results (they apparently believe the building might have fallen even if the SFRM wasn't dislodged) they also show from their own modeling that the pull in forces were caused by the fire.
Arthur
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6Lane.pdf
From the report:
Some context
• Commercially unacceptable now to build tall without addressing extreme events
• Demand for information and knowledge has been unprecedented
• High-rise building design and expectation from this design has changed - and did so very quickly
• Current trend in London is “are you compliant with NIST”
While they don't totally agree with NIST's model results (they apparently believe the building might have fallen even if the SFRM wasn't dislodged) they also show from their own modeling that the pull in forces were caused by the fire.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+May 23 2007, 09:08 PM)
i didn't bother to read a lot of stuff.
bullet four: nada
the NIST went to great effort to obfuscate, er, explain the collapse INITIATION mechanics. and yet, we see little in the way of suggestions for improvement in codes and standards, and NOTHING in the way of collapse propogation.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/index.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/recommendations/recommendations.htm
May 1, 2006 - Meeting to Discuss IBC Code Change Proposal for Progressive/Disproportionate Collapse
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Sunder_Progressi...arks_050106.pdf
bullet four: nada
the NIST went to great effort to obfuscate, er, explain the collapse INITIATION mechanics. and yet, we see little in the way of suggestions for improvement in codes and standards, and NOTHING in the way of collapse propogation.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/index.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/recommendations/recommendations.htm
May 1, 2006 - Meeting to Discuss IBC Code Change Proposal for Progressive/Disproportionate Collapse
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Sunder_Progressi...arks_050106.pdf
QUOTE (newton+May 24 2007, 02:08 AM)
... and only achieved a 50% score on their paper.
Nope. There have been improvements in design methods. I'm not sure how much NIST contributed to that. NIST ran whole workshops having to do with other point two matters.
I don't quite know how to measure point four, so I left it out.
As for their objectives, I'd score NIST much higher, but for NCSTAR1 I don't give them an A grade...
Nope. There have been improvements in design methods. I'm not sure how much NIST contributed to that. NIST ran whole workshops having to do with other point two matters.
I don't quite know how to measure point four, so I left it out.
As for their objectives, I'd score NIST much higher, but for NCSTAR1 I don't give them an A grade...
QUOTE
In the course of its Investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, NIST has not found any evidence that well-tied buildings performed unfavorably (or collapse earlier) than buildings that are not well-tied. In fact NIST has found that, had the major structural subsystems of the WTC towers not been tied together, the core of the towers would have collapsed earlier. The hat-truss tied the core to the perimeter walls of the towers, and thus allowed the building to withstand the effects of the aircraft impact and subsequent fires for a much longer time enabling large numbers of building occupants to evacuate safely.
so, what is it, NIST? you are 'recommending' that there is no difference between well tied, and not well-tied, and you are talking about the core failing first, which is not what your report says. your report says the perimeter wall failed first, not the core.
if the hat truss was transferring support from the perimeter to the core, with the perimeter holding the CORE UP, and it was the core that was weakest, well....WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE TWENTY MILLION!? why does you report say it was because the outside wall was pulled in, yet you are clearly saying here it was a failure of the core that allowed collapse.
oh, this tiny web ye w3ave.
p.s. in my humongous opinion, well-tied is OBVIOUSLY better, and i'll give that recommendation up for free.
QUOTE (newton+May 24 2007, 02:36 AM)
... why does you[sic] report say it was because the outside wall was pulled in, yet you are clearly saying here it was a failure of the core that allowed collapse.
(1) Core columns begin to fail.
(2) Hat truss transfer the load from the core to the walls.
(3) Walls are now somewhat overloaded.
(4) Being somewhat overloaded, walls more susceptible to being pulled-in.
(5) Wall pull-in and finally buckle.
(1) Core columns begin to fail.
(2) Hat truss transfer the load from the core to the walls.
(3) Walls are now somewhat overloaded.
(4) Being somewhat overloaded, walls more susceptible to being pulled-in.
(5) Wall pull-in and finally buckle.
QUOTE (newton+May 23 2007, 09:36 PM)
so, what is it, NIST? you are 'recommending' that there is no difference between well tied, and not well-tied,
What part of THIS:
QUOTE
The hat-truss tied the core to the perimeter walls of the towers, and thus allowed the building to withstand the effects of the aircraft impact and subsequent fires for a much longer time enabling large numbers of building occupants to evacuate safely.
DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 24 2007, 02:43 AM)
(1) Core columns begin to fail.
(2) Hat truss transfer the load from the core to the walls.
(3) Walls are now somewhat overloaded.
(4) Being somewhat overloaded, walls more susceptible to being pulled-in.
(5) Wall pull-in and finally buckle.
why has no NIST apologist ever taken this (simple) tack, before?
strange?
or par for the farce?
the majority of heat was not in the core. indeed, the core was quite cool for steel, according to NIST's colour coded heat spectrum graphs.why would the core fail first?
why didn't NIST claim the core failed first? their claim is CLEARLY, the floor trusses pulled in the perimeter. how is this possible, if they are not moored to something stronger than themselves(ie. the core)?
if the core is failing, then THAT is what pulled in the perimeter walls, via the floor trusses. just like 'we' have been saying all along. the core HAS to fail first for the floor trusses to pull in the exterior.
time to change the official explanation, like a well-filled diaper.
(2) Hat truss transfer the load from the core to the walls.
(3) Walls are now somewhat overloaded.
(4) Being somewhat overloaded, walls more susceptible to being pulled-in.
(5) Wall pull-in and finally buckle.
why has no NIST apologist ever taken this (simple) tack, before?
strange?
or par for the farce?
the majority of heat was not in the core. indeed, the core was quite cool for steel, according to NIST's colour coded heat spectrum graphs.why would the core fail first?
why didn't NIST claim the core failed first? their claim is CLEARLY, the floor trusses pulled in the perimeter. how is this possible, if they are not moored to something stronger than themselves(ie. the core)?
if the core is failing, then THAT is what pulled in the perimeter walls, via the floor trusses. just like 'we' have been saying all along. the core HAS to fail first for the floor trusses to pull in the exterior.
time to change the official explanation, like a well-filled diaper.
QUOTE (newton+May 24 2007, 02:58 AM)
why would the core fail first?
I didn't say that. Some of the core columns began to fail. This is clear from reading NCSTAR1-6D, especially the strain depictions.
The load is fixed up in two ways.
(1) Other core columns.
(2) Transferring load to the walls via the hat truss.
The failing core columns were those, I presume, without insulation and where there was a fire. There are several parts to the NCSTAR1-5 fire study, so, unlike Arthur, I can't tell you whether the discussion and depictions are in part B, C, D, E, F, or G. Nonetheless, it is clear from the fire study that several core columns were heated to the point that they could no longer bear the load and so buckled.
Not all at once. Over time.
I didn't say that. Some of the core columns began to fail. This is clear from reading NCSTAR1-6D, especially the strain depictions.
The load is fixed up in two ways.
(1) Other core columns.
(2) Transferring load to the walls via the hat truss.
The failing core columns were those, I presume, without insulation and where there was a fire. There are several parts to the NCSTAR1-5 fire study, so, unlike Arthur, I can't tell you whether the discussion and depictions are in part B, C, D, E, F, or G. Nonetheless, it is clear from the fire study that several core columns were heated to the point that they could no longer bear the load and so buckled.
Not all at once. Over time.
QUOTE (newton+)
their claim is CLEARLY, the floor trusses pulled in the perimeter
NO, its NOT.
Their CLAIM is that the floor trusses exerted a RELATIVELY SMALL force of ~ 5 KIP on the Exterior Columns.
Time to read the report AGAIN. It seems like nearly every time you try to paraphrase what it said you invariably get it WRONG.
Arthur
paraphrase this.
that's what a hot fire looks like at the twin towers.
look at any of the photos from the pre-collapse time period. do you SEE any flame AT ALL?
i usually get it right, and it's ruining your profession.
sorry, the steel-weakening fires didn't exist. they only saw 'light' in computer simulations.
they call it a conflagration for a reason. it's light emitting. no light, no fire.
NIST's CRAP(their conclusions, not their raw data, which is FOOD) will get eaten alive(or dead) by history.
NO, its NOT.
Their CLAIM is that the floor trusses exerted a RELATIVELY SMALL force of ~ 5 KIP on the Exterior Columns.
QUOTE (newton+)
i did read it, a long time ago.
Time to read the report AGAIN. It seems like nearly every time you try to paraphrase what it said you invariably get it WRONG.
Arthur
Time to read the report AGAIN. It seems like nearly every time you try to paraphrase what it said you invariably get it WRONG.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 24 2007, 03:26 AM)
Time to read the report AGAIN. It seems like nearly every time you try to paraphrase what it said you invariably get it WRONG.
Arthur
paraphrase this.
that's what a hot fire looks like at the twin towers.
look at any of the photos from the pre-collapse time period. do you SEE any flame AT ALL?
i usually get it right, and it's ruining your profession.
sorry, the steel-weakening fires didn't exist. they only saw 'light' in computer simulations.
they call it a conflagration for a reason. it's light emitting. no light, no fire.
NIST's CRAP(their conclusions, not their raw data, which is FOOD) will get eaten alive(or dead) by history.
QUOTE (newton+May 24 2007, 06:46 AM)
i usually get it right, and it's ruining your profession.
sorry, the steel-weakening fires didn't exist. they only saw 'light' in computer simulations.
they call it a conflagration for a reason. it's light emitting. no light, no fire.
NIST's CRAP(their conclusions, not their raw data, which is FOOD) will get eaten alive(or dead) by history.
First there was the no plane theory.
Then there was the no passenger theory.
And now we have newton's no fire theory.
I guess that old saying, where there's smoke, there's fire, is just an old wives' tale.
sorry, the steel-weakening fires didn't exist. they only saw 'light' in computer simulations.
they call it a conflagration for a reason. it's light emitting. no light, no fire.
NIST's CRAP(their conclusions, not their raw data, which is FOOD) will get eaten alive(or dead) by history.
First there was the no plane theory.
Then there was the no passenger theory.
And now we have newton's no fire theory.
I guess that old saying, where there's smoke, there's fire, is just an old wives' tale.
QUOTE (lozenge124+May 24 2007, 01:16 AM)
Looks like the Purdue group finished their computer simulation/study:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm
purdue pdf
purdue video
Unfortunately it only covers the initial plane impact, not the global collapse...
Some interesting visualizations though.
It looks like a combination of vizualisation and simulation. How could one simulate bending trusses etc, the situation is really complex, I don't know anything about FEA but normally in numerical mathematics you first have to setup your equations and then solve them, even that is undoable.
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm
purdue pdf
purdue video
Unfortunately it only covers the initial plane impact, not the global collapse...
Some interesting visualizations though.
It looks like a combination of vizualisation and simulation. How could one simulate bending trusses etc, the situation is really complex, I don't know anything about FEA but normally in numerical mathematics you first have to setup your equations and then solve them, even that is undoable.
I will post this every time some repeats the 9-11 lie:
The people responsible for 9-11 are the ones who planted the explosives that turned the WTC intact concrete and glass into a 50 micron sized fine powder in less than 15 seconds.
NOBODY has ever discovered a way to turn concrete, glass, wheat, peanut or any other material in to a 50 micron sized fine powder without either EXPLODING or MILLING or ABRADING the material.
NO COMPRESSION FORCE, be it hammer, hydraulic press, or the dropping of the entire weight of a WTC tower, can turn an intact piece of material be it concrete, glass, wheat, or peanut into an appreciable quantity of micron sized powders, because the FORCE has to be applied between two surfaces that are smoother than 50 microns across their faces, and besides most of the material will be ejected from the sides before the faces come within 50 microns of each other anyway!
Folks you can try this at home yourself with a hammer a half peanut a hard floor and 15 seconds of time, and then tell everyone how much 50 micron peanut flour you made!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED A COMPRESSION FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between two surfaces that were smooth to within a 50 micron tolerance, because the WTC tower's has no such surfaces yet alone two surfaces with enough area to create the appreciable amount of fine dust that rained down for blocks.!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED A MILLING FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between mortar and pestle like surfaces and ground them for many minutes, and besides the fine powder was created in less than 15 seconds!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED AN ABRADING FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between grind stone like surfaces and ground them for many minutes, and besides the fine powder was created in less than 15 seconds!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION!
If ANYBODY come up with a way to make an appreciable quantity of 50 micron sized powders of any material be it concrete, glass, wheat, or peanut, in less than 15 seconds by using COMPRESSION FORCE, you will better hurry up and notify the patent office and the Nobel prize committee!
The people responsible for 9-11 are the ones who planted the explosives that turned the WTC intact concrete and glass into a 50 micron sized fine powder in less than 15 seconds.
NOBODY has ever discovered a way to turn concrete, glass, wheat, peanut or any other material in to a 50 micron sized fine powder without either EXPLODING or MILLING or ABRADING the material.
NO COMPRESSION FORCE, be it hammer, hydraulic press, or the dropping of the entire weight of a WTC tower, can turn an intact piece of material be it concrete, glass, wheat, or peanut into an appreciable quantity of micron sized powders, because the FORCE has to be applied between two surfaces that are smoother than 50 microns across their faces, and besides most of the material will be ejected from the sides before the faces come within 50 microns of each other anyway!
Folks you can try this at home yourself with a hammer a half peanut a hard floor and 15 seconds of time, and then tell everyone how much 50 micron peanut flour you made!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED A COMPRESSION FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between two surfaces that were smooth to within a 50 micron tolerance, because the WTC tower's has no such surfaces yet alone two surfaces with enough area to create the appreciable amount of fine dust that rained down for blocks.!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED A MILLING FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between mortar and pestle like surfaces and ground them for many minutes, and besides the fine powder was created in less than 15 seconds!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED AN ABRADING FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between grind stone like surfaces and ground them for many minutes, and besides the fine powder was created in less than 15 seconds!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION!
If ANYBODY come up with a way to make an appreciable quantity of 50 micron sized powders of any material be it concrete, glass, wheat, or peanut, in less than 15 seconds by using COMPRESSION FORCE, you will better hurry up and notify the patent office and the Nobel prize committee!
QUOTE (criticalthinker+May 24 2007, 10:24 AM)
I will post this every time some repeats the 9-11 lie:
The people responsible for 9-11 are the ones who planted the explosives that turned the WTC intact concrete and glass into a 50 micron sized fine powder in less than 15 seconds.
NOBODY has ever discovered a way to turn concrete, glass, wheat, peanut or any other material in to a 50 micron sized fine powder without either EXPLODING or MILLING or ABRADING the material.
Obviously no milling or abrading going on at the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. I don't recall the sun rising that day either. Does anyone have any visual evidence of a sunrise on 9/11?
The people responsible for 9-11 are the ones who planted the explosives that turned the WTC intact concrete and glass into a 50 micron sized fine powder in less than 15 seconds.
NOBODY has ever discovered a way to turn concrete, glass, wheat, peanut or any other material in to a 50 micron sized fine powder without either EXPLODING or MILLING or ABRADING the material.
Obviously no milling or abrading going on at the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. I don't recall the sun rising that day either. Does anyone have any visual evidence of a sunrise on 9/11?
criticalthinker
Not ALL(nor even anything but a small fraction) of the concrete and glass in the towers was turned into dust.
Every time you smack a piece of concrete with a hammer a small portion of that concrete will be dust, a larger portion will be sand sized, a major portion will be pebble sized, the rest will be chunks. Blow air across this rubble and the dust will become airborne, the rest will stay put, so all the concrete contained in the dust will be of the smaller sizes.
That all the concrete in the dust was micron sized does NOT mean that all the concrete in the buildings was crushed to that size, in fact most of that concrete was found in the basements in chunks.
Therefore your contention of explosives being used is REFUTED!!!
Grumpy
Not ALL(nor even anything but a small fraction) of the concrete and glass in the towers was turned into dust.
Every time you smack a piece of concrete with a hammer a small portion of that concrete will be dust, a larger portion will be sand sized, a major portion will be pebble sized, the rest will be chunks. Blow air across this rubble and the dust will become airborne, the rest will stay put, so all the concrete contained in the dust will be of the smaller sizes.
That all the concrete in the dust was micron sized does NOT mean that all the concrete in the buildings was crushed to that size, in fact most of that concrete was found in the basements in chunks.
Therefore your contention of explosives being used is REFUTED!!!
Grumpy
newton
Actually, just as in the case of faked moon landing kooks, and JFK conspiracy kooks, history will see you kooks as the lunatic fringe that you are.
Grumpy
QUOTE
NIST's CRAP(their conclusions, not their raw data, which is FOOD) will get eaten alive(or dead) by history.
Actually, just as in the case of faked moon landing kooks, and JFK conspiracy kooks, history will see you kooks as the lunatic fringe that you are.
Grumpy
QUOTE (newton+May 23 2007, 10:47 PM)
actually, his results weren't spherey enough for me, and i find his 'fitting data to conclusions' a little too NISTian. his experiments are ALWAYSAaimed at trying to 'prove' the official lie.
but, to be fair, i am simply debating heresay. i do not 'know'(like you can really know anything at all), how the two(chainsaw/actual samples) compare, what the distribution in the debris was like, how spherey spherey is, particle sizes, composition, etc.
i do know i saw waves of demolition travelling down the inside of the building, faster than metal debris on the outside falling through air. i figger, the explosives used would be good at making spheroids, as they would throw molten particles every which way.
i have proven something physically impossible by the official explanantion. that is enough for me.
MY experiments are done in more exacting conditions than anyones Else's using the same materials that were a play in the buildings, and I describe the findings accurately, as observed.
I use only what was in the buildings naturally, in the natural conditions.
Gee I am simply testing the theories as they are represented on both sides and let the information guide me where it leads not where I wish it to go!
but, to be fair, i am simply debating heresay. i do not 'know'(like you can really know anything at all), how the two(chainsaw/actual samples) compare, what the distribution in the debris was like, how spherey spherey is, particle sizes, composition, etc.
i do know i saw waves of demolition travelling down the inside of the building, faster than metal debris on the outside falling through air. i figger, the explosives used would be good at making spheroids, as they would throw molten particles every which way.
i have proven something physically impossible by the official explanantion. that is enough for me.
MY experiments are done in more exacting conditions than anyones Else's using the same materials that were a play in the buildings, and I describe the findings accurately, as observed.
I use only what was in the buildings naturally, in the natural conditions.
Gee I am simply testing the theories as they are represented on both sides and let the information guide me where it leads not where I wish it to go!
QUOTE (criticalthinker+May 24 2007, 10:24 AM)
I will post this every time some repeats the 9-11 lie:
The people responsible for 9-11 are the ones who planted the explosives that turned the WTC intact concrete and glass into a 50 micron sized fine powder in less than 15 seconds.
NOBODY has ever discovered a way to turn concrete, glass, wheat, peanut or any other material in to a 50 micron sized fine powder without either EXPLODING or MILLING or ABRADING the material.
NO COMPRESSION FORCE, be it hammer, hydraulic press, or the dropping of the entire weight of a WTC tower, can turn an intact piece of material be it concrete, glass, wheat, or peanut into an appreciable quantity of micron sized powders, because the FORCE has to be applied between two surfaces that are smoother than 50 microns across their faces, and besides most of the material will be ejected from the sides before the faces come within 50 microns of each other anyway!
Folks you can try this at home yourself with a hammer a half peanut a hard floor and 15 seconds of time, and then tell everyone how much 50 micron peanut flour you made!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED A COMPRESSION FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between two surfaces that were smooth to within a 50 micron tolerance, because the WTC tower's has no such surfaces yet alone two surfaces with enough area to create the appreciable amount of fine dust that rained down for blocks.!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED A MILLING FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between mortar and pestle like surfaces and ground them for many minutes, and besides the fine powder was created in less than 15 seconds!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED AN ABRADING FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between grind stone like surfaces and ground them for many minutes, and besides the fine powder was created in less than 15 seconds!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION!
If ANYBODY come up with a way to make an appreciable quantity of 50 micron sized powders of any material be it concrete, glass, wheat, or peanut, in less than 15 seconds by using COMPRESSION FORCE, you will better hurry up and notify the patent office and the Nobel prize committee!
Concrete with high amounts of Gypsum heated to 350c is dust.
I have talked with several people who worked in the building, one said that the concrete was so bad they had to use glue in anchors because wedge ins would not hold in the concrete.
Incidentally the natural consistence of Plaster of Paris is oh .50 micron.
Plaster of Paris
Also given years of storage of high sulfur fuels probably on the mechanical floors the Concrete Should have included even more Gypsum from its natural formation from SO2 and Ozone with atmospheric moisture.
The people responsible for 9-11 are the ones who planted the explosives that turned the WTC intact concrete and glass into a 50 micron sized fine powder in less than 15 seconds.
NOBODY has ever discovered a way to turn concrete, glass, wheat, peanut or any other material in to a 50 micron sized fine powder without either EXPLODING or MILLING or ABRADING the material.
NO COMPRESSION FORCE, be it hammer, hydraulic press, or the dropping of the entire weight of a WTC tower, can turn an intact piece of material be it concrete, glass, wheat, or peanut into an appreciable quantity of micron sized powders, because the FORCE has to be applied between two surfaces that are smoother than 50 microns across their faces, and besides most of the material will be ejected from the sides before the faces come within 50 microns of each other anyway!
Folks you can try this at home yourself with a hammer a half peanut a hard floor and 15 seconds of time, and then tell everyone how much 50 micron peanut flour you made!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED A COMPRESSION FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between two surfaces that were smooth to within a 50 micron tolerance, because the WTC tower's has no such surfaces yet alone two surfaces with enough area to create the appreciable amount of fine dust that rained down for blocks.!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED A MILLING FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between mortar and pestle like surfaces and ground them for many minutes, and besides the fine powder was created in less than 15 seconds!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED AN ABRADING FORCE that could trap the WTC tower's concrete and glass material between grind stone like surfaces and ground them for many minutes, and besides the fine powder was created in less than 15 seconds!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION!
If ANYBODY come up with a way to make an appreciable quantity of 50 micron sized powders of any material be it concrete, glass, wheat, or peanut, in less than 15 seconds by using COMPRESSION FORCE, you will better hurry up and notify the patent office and the Nobel prize committee!
Concrete with high amounts of Gypsum heated to 350c is dust.
I have talked with several people who worked in the building, one said that the concrete was so bad they had to use glue in anchors because wedge ins would not hold in the concrete.
Incidentally the natural consistence of Plaster of Paris is oh .50 micron.
Plaster of Paris
Also given years of storage of high sulfur fuels probably on the mechanical floors the Concrete Should have included even more Gypsum from its natural formation from SO2 and Ozone with atmospheric moisture.
newton
You saw puffs of air being expelled from blown out windows AHEAD of(but not faster than) the falling debris. Those puffs were simply expelled from between falling floors. So you are left with having proven nothing.
I'm still waiting for physical evidence of the presence and use of even a firecracker, much less tons of explosives. Until such evidence(not opinion or "It looked like...") is presented ALL theories positting their use are BOGUS(theories must be supported by unambiguous, physical evidence, just as NIST did, or they are only speculation).
Grumpy
QUOTE
i do know i saw waves of demolition travelling down the inside of the building, faster than metal debris on the outside falling through air. i figger, the explosives used would be good at making spheroids, as they would throw molten particles every which way.
You saw puffs of air being expelled from blown out windows AHEAD of(but not faster than) the falling debris. Those puffs were simply expelled from between falling floors. So you are left with having proven nothing.
I'm still waiting for physical evidence of the presence and use of even a firecracker, much less tons of explosives. Until such evidence(not opinion or "It looked like...") is presented ALL theories positting their use are BOGUS(theories must be supported by unambiguous, physical evidence, just as NIST did, or they are only speculation).
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 24 2007, 01:33 PM)
I'm still waiting for physical evidence of the presence and use of even a firecracker, much less tons of explosives. Until such evidence(not opinion or "It looked like...") is presented ALL theories positting their use are BOGUS(theories must be supported by unambiguous, physical evidence, just as NIST did, or they are only speculation).
Grumpy
And physical evidence will be very difficult for buildings who dissapeared > 5 years ago.
btw. Is there also a physical evidence that those "squibs" are air. That would be a great challenge Grumpy.
Grumpy
And physical evidence will be very difficult for buildings who dissapeared > 5 years ago.
btw. Is there also a physical evidence that those "squibs" are air. That would be a great challenge Grumpy.
QUOTE (einsteen+May 24 2007, 01:56 PM)
btw. Is there also a physical evidence that those "squibs" are air.
there certainly appears to be a lot of debris in the "air"
there certainly appears to be a lot of debris in the "air"
QUOTE (einsteen+May 24 2007, 09:05 AM)
It looks like a combination of vizualisation and simulation. How could one simulate bending trusses etc, the situation is really complex, I don't know anything about FEA but normally in numerical mathematics you first have to setup your equations and then solve them, even that is undoable.
Not sure what you mean, do you mean the collapse would be impossible to do with FEA? Because these visualizations are based on a complex FEA model and NIST also did one for the plane impact.
I think the innovation here is that after using LS-DYNA for the FEA, they imported the datasets into 3ds Max and got some cool visuals. But this doesn't detract from the solidity of the FEA model.
A model of the North Tower (WTC-I) was built by the civil
engineering members of the team. It included all structural
elements as well as the concrete floors (Figure 9). All stories were
modeled, including those underground. The simulation restricted
to the upper 20 floors of the building, however with increased
detail meshing near the impact region so as to achieve high
accuracy of the results. The aircraft and WTC-I model total
332,862 nodes; 87,188 SPH, 248,433 beam, 93,733 shell, and 674
solid elements. The titanium shafts of the two engines and the
titanium undercarriage were modeled with solid elements. The
FEA computation took 166 hours on an IBM Regatta with 16
Power-5 processors. The simulation data files for the 400 saved
states comprise 20GB of disk space. The simulation begins at the
moment of impact and covers 1 second of real time. Debris begins
to re-emerge through the opposite face of the building at
approximately 0.36s.
35 Pretending that an argument is not settled even if all the available evidence says it is. This is a special case of "Terminal Stupidity" that seems to be contracted by the viewing of "loose Change" or attendence of a "troother" conference. A perfect example is notsoquick's firetruck.
Grumpy
You mean this firetruck, Mr. Snow White Protector? (BTW, you might see it better if you'd take off those Elvis shades of yours, Slick.)
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
"Terminal Stupidity"? Yeah, you must be an expert on that subject.
Did you used to teach it?
HAUGHTY EYES AND A PROUD HEART
THE LAMP OF THE WICKED
IS SIN
You mean this firetruck, Mr. Snow White Protector? (BTW, you might see it better if you'd take off those Elvis shades of yours, Slick.)
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
"Terminal Stupidity"? Yeah, you must be an expert on that subject.
Did you used to teach it?
HAUGHTY EYES AND A PROUD HEART
THE LAMP OF THE WICKED
IS SIN
You mean this firetruck, Mr. Snow White Protector? (BTW, you might see it better if you'd take off those Elvis shades of yours, Slick.)
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
"Terminal Stupidity"? Yeah, you must be an expert on that subject.
Did you used to teach it?
HAUGHTY EYES AND A PROUD HEART
THE LAMP OF THE WICKED
IS SIN
I've seen this picture a couple of times, what is it exactly and what is the point ?
I've seen this picture a couple of times, what is it exactly and what is the point ?
It has to do with this link
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...70&#entry161333
where adoucette, Grumpy, 911myths.com, etc., offer the lame excuse that this firetruck's reflection is not a reflection at all, but merely the rear brake light of the car in front.
(And they say I'm desperate.)
The fraudulent Pavel Hlava video relates directly to “Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/mirrored/craigfurlong/
Summarized as:
“Plane Impact” Times: Incriminating Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Complicity
The official times for plane "impact" [precise to the second] as declared by the US Government, from both the 9/11 Commission and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), are different and yet both are true and accurate times. What can this factual contradiction mean? Looking exclusively at WTC1, there is found a causal link:
One World Trade, September 11, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11 “impact” time:
8:46:30 UTC, per LDEO seismic data (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005)
8:46:40 UTC, per FAA last primary radar contact*** (9/11 Commission Final Report, 2004)
Q- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event that occurred 10 seconds before the actual aircrash at 8:46:40?
A- The only possibility is huge explosions, as corroborated by many eyewitnesses at the time.
Q- Who caused these explosions before the plane hit?
Notes:
In 2004, the 9/11 Commission avoided addressing the earlier seismic event time (which had been, in error, attributed by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, originally in 2001 as “plane impact”).
In 2005, NIST avoided addressing the 9/11 Commission’s later time for the aircraft’s actual impact time.
Both the 9/11 Commission and NIST avoided addressing the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements before the plane crashed.
This precise data has yet to be refuted. It is from the two governmental entities charged with looking into what happened on 9/11, and both declared these times accurate, and in so doing corroborate William Rodriguez and the many eyewitnesses the morning of 9/11 who testified of explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before American Airlines Flight 11 struck the building. This is indicting evidence of governmental coverup and complicity, and calls for a new 9/11 investigation, except this time a real one.
***{Additional supporting information on this radar contact}:
http://www.studyof911.com/forum/index.php?...=findpost&p=664
http://www.studyof911.com/forum/index.php?...=findpost&p=665
"There is an appointed time for everything,
And there is a time for every event under heaven"
- Ecclesiastes 3:1
notsoquick
I'm sure you and the Web Fairy make a cute couple, but there is no firetruck(or it's lightbar) reflected in that poor BMW's rear window, just it's own third brake light.
Seek professional help, I would suggest...
http://www.fundamentalists-anonymous.org/
Grumpy
I have nothing to do with Webfairy, Mr. Dwarf, and you, by denying the obvious emergency vehicle reflection, need to become intellectually honest. You attack me {ad hominem} and deny the obvious {lack of conformity to truth or fact; outright falsehood}.
We all need help in life, but I would suggest you and Capracus, instead of asking me to seek professional help, read the Bible. Instead of "attacking" me because I am a Christian who shares quotes from the Bible, why don't you stick to 9/11. Attacking the messenger is a logic fallacy. In addition, attacking me for being a Christian makes me rejoice in my Savior (He said this would happen).
Finally, if the Bible is false, and you ignore what it says about Jesus and eternity, you are fine.
But if the Bible is true, and you ignore what it says about God's Son, you will not be saved and will not like the consequences.
Jesus Christ: "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
AND THERE IS SALVATION IN NO ONE ELSE
FOR THERE IS NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN AMONG MEN BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED
Not sure what you mean, do you mean the collapse would be impossible to do with FEA? Because these visualizations are based on a complex FEA model and NIST also did one for the plane impact.
I think the innovation here is that after using LS-DYNA for the FEA, they imported the datasets into 3ds Max and got some cool visuals. But this doesn't detract from the solidity of the FEA model.
QUOTE
The visualization was designed to meet two
conditions. First, the visualization had to depict the impact with
high fidelity, by closely following the laws of physics. Second,
the visualization had to be eloquent to a non-expert user. This was
achieved by first designing and computing a finite element
analysis (FEA) simulation of the impact between the Boeing 767
and the top 20 stories of the building, and then by visualizing the
FEA results with a state-of-the-art commercial animation system.
The visualization was enabled by an automatic translator that
converts the simulation data into an animation system 3D scene
by removing simulation data with little visual relevance and by
adding details important for the visualization that were ignored by
the simulation.
conditions. First, the visualization had to depict the impact with
high fidelity, by closely following the laws of physics. Second,
the visualization had to be eloquent to a non-expert user. This was
achieved by first designing and computing a finite element
analysis (FEA) simulation of the impact between the Boeing 767
and the top 20 stories of the building, and then by visualizing the
FEA results with a state-of-the-art commercial animation system.
The visualization was enabled by an automatic translator that
converts the simulation data into an animation system 3D scene
by removing simulation data with little visual relevance and by
adding details important for the visualization that were ignored by
the simulation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The visualization was designed to meet two conditions. First, the visualization had to depict the impact with high fidelity, by closely following the laws of physics. Second, the visualization had to be eloquent to a non-expert user. This was achieved by first designing and computing a finite element analysis (FEA) simulation of the impact between the Boeing 767 and the top 20 stories of the building, and then by visualizing the FEA results with a state-of-the-art commercial animation system. The visualization was enabled by an automatic translator that converts the simulation data into an animation system 3D scene by removing simulation data with little visual relevance and by adding details important for the visualization that were ignored by the simulation. |
A model of the North Tower (WTC-I) was built by the civil
engineering members of the team. It included all structural
elements as well as the concrete floors (Figure 9). All stories were
modeled, including those underground. The simulation restricted
to the upper 20 floors of the building, however with increased
detail meshing near the impact region so as to achieve high
accuracy of the results. The aircraft and WTC-I model total
332,862 nodes; 87,188 SPH, 248,433 beam, 93,733 shell, and 674
solid elements. The titanium shafts of the two engines and the
titanium undercarriage were modeled with solid elements. The
FEA computation took 166 hours on an IBM Regatta with 16
Power-5 processors. The simulation data files for the 400 saved
states comprise 20GB of disk space. The simulation begins at the
moment of impact and covers 1 second of real time. Debris begins
to re-emerge through the opposite face of the building at
approximately 0.36s.
Lozenge, I've only one year experience with numerical methods and used chimera grids (even got a peer reviewed article online, wow...) but as far as I remember you only are solving (partial) differential equations that you already set up, I mean the program does not lead its own life, like a kind of game. I can imagine that you really have a very complex amount of nonlinear coupled PDE's whatever, but I remember that even a single simple PDE is very cumbersome to work out, you need to do (analytic) asymptotic analysis to fit your grids etc. bla bla. Of course my knowledge is limited and we speak about years and years ago but this situation is extremely complex and we all know from chaos theory that a small difference lead to a butterfly effect. I simply cannot believe that the sagging truss is a simulation resulting from the plane impact and a simulated fireball etc. Visualization ok, but then you assume some things that you want to animate. I can imagine that with some global models you could maybe get a global idea about what happens but not exactly and if you also take into account that no one on earth knows what was inside the building then you can really forgot it.
And what conclusion can be made from this historical simulation/visualization, if I may ask.
Strong plane. Eh eh...
And *** is this supposed to mean ??
Strong plane. Eh eh...
And *** is this supposed to mean ??
QUOTE (einsteen+May 24 2007, 03:52 PM)
Lozenge, I've only one year experience with numerical methods and used chimera grids (even got a peer reviewed article online, wow...) but as far as I remember you only are solving (partial) differential equations that you already set up, I mean the program does not lead its own life, like a kind of game. I can imagine that you really have a very complex amount of nonlinear coupled PDE's whatever, but I remember that even a single simple PDE is very cumbersome to work out, you need to do (analytic) asymptotic analysis to fit your grids etc. bla bla. Of course my knowledge is limited and we speak about years and years ago but this situation is extremely complex and we all know from chaos theory that a small difference lead to a butterfly effect. I simply cannot believe that the sagging truss is a simulation resulting from the plane impact and a simulated fireball etc. Visualization ok, but then you assume some things that you want to animate. I can imagine that with some global models you could maybe get a global idea about what happens but not exactly and if you also take into account that no one on earth knows what was inside the building then you can really forgot it.
Well obviously you're not going to get results that exactly replicate the precise damage of each column and piece of steel of the real tower, but you can get useful results for example to estimate the damege to the perimeter & especially core columns. After all FEA is a proven technology used extensively in engineering nowadays (but it's not foolproof, in the sense that mesh size and initial conditions etc...matter, so you try to validate things as best as possible by cross-referencing with the real world).
Hopefully the Purdue group will compare their results to the NIST's to see how their building damage estimates match up.
Well obviously you're not going to get results that exactly replicate the precise damage of each column and piece of steel of the real tower, but you can get useful results for example to estimate the damege to the perimeter & especially core columns. After all FEA is a proven technology used extensively in engineering nowadays (but it's not foolproof, in the sense that mesh size and initial conditions etc...matter, so you try to validate things as best as possible by cross-referencing with the real world).
Hopefully the Purdue group will compare their results to the NIST's to see how their building damage estimates match up.
QUOTE (lozenge124+May 24 2007, 04:56 PM)
Hopefully the Purdue group will compare their results to the NIST's to see how their building damage estimates match up.
According to Arthur, they did already. And similar to the previous MIT study, they found greater damage to the core columns (by a little) than NIST did, and, (I think) for the same reason: They didn't model building contents.
According to Arthur, they did already. And similar to the previous MIT study, they found greater damage to the core columns (by a little) than NIST did, and, (I think) for the same reason: They didn't model building contents.
To put the modeling into perspective the Perdue study used a total of just 327,000 nodes.
NIST used 2,300,000 total including 740,000 nodes for the aircraft and 180,000 for the furnishings/interiors.
So once again its clear that NIST did by FAR a more extensive modeling job and further its clear that the modeling that NIST did significantly stretched the limits of FEA on building structures and impacts.
The Perdue study produced more damage than the B case (more Severe) used by NIST for WTC 1.
"Current findings from the simulation have identified the destruction of 11 columns on the 94th floor, 10 columns on the 95th floor and 9 columns on the 96th floor," he said. "This is a major insight. When you lose close to 25 percent of your columns at a given level, the building is significantly weakened and vulnerable to collapse."
In contrast to NIST, which didn't use the term "destroyed", instead NIST used four classifications: Severed, Heavy, Moderate or Light. Assuming Severed and Heavy damage are the same as Purdue's "Destroyed" then NIST identified 7 columns on 94, 9 columns on 95 and 6 columns on 96 that were severed or heavily damaged.
Arthur
NIST used 2,300,000 total including 740,000 nodes for the aircraft and 180,000 for the furnishings/interiors.
So once again its clear that NIST did by FAR a more extensive modeling job and further its clear that the modeling that NIST did significantly stretched the limits of FEA on building structures and impacts.
The Perdue study produced more damage than the B case (more Severe) used by NIST for WTC 1.
"Current findings from the simulation have identified the destruction of 11 columns on the 94th floor, 10 columns on the 95th floor and 9 columns on the 96th floor," he said. "This is a major insight. When you lose close to 25 percent of your columns at a given level, the building is significantly weakened and vulnerable to collapse."
In contrast to NIST, which didn't use the term "destroyed", instead NIST used four classifications: Severed, Heavy, Moderate or Light. Assuming Severed and Heavy damage are the same as Purdue's "Destroyed" then NIST identified 7 columns on 94, 9 columns on 95 and 6 columns on 96 that were severed or heavily damaged.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+May 24 2007, 01:46 AM)
paraphrase this.
that's what a hot fire looks like at the twin towers.
look at any of the photos from the pre-collapse time period. do you SEE any flame AT ALL?
Nope.
Wrong AGAIN.
That picture was taken at ~9:41 and shows a LARGE fire on the South side of WTC 1. The fires will continue to burn on the South Side until collapse.
Now go to NIST NCSTAR1-5A pict 8-73 and see the large multi-floor fires burning on the West side at 9:51
Now go to pic 8-86 and see the large fires burning on the North side at 10:17.
Now go to pic 8-106 and see the even larger fires burning on the South side at 10:22 and the South Wall BOWING in.
Arthur
that's what a hot fire looks like at the twin towers.
look at any of the photos from the pre-collapse time period. do you SEE any flame AT ALL?
Nope.
Wrong AGAIN.
That picture was taken at ~9:41 and shows a LARGE fire on the South side of WTC 1. The fires will continue to burn on the South Side until collapse.
Now go to NIST NCSTAR1-5A pict 8-73 and see the large multi-floor fires burning on the West side at 9:51
Now go to pic 8-86 and see the large fires burning on the North side at 10:17.
Now go to pic 8-106 and see the even larger fires burning on the South side at 10:22 and the South Wall BOWING in.
Arthur
Purdue engineers think wings & tail sections are stronger than steel
Purdue engineers created this simulation of AA11 crashing and penetrating all the way through the facade of the North WTC Tower. What a fine institution of higher learning:
Purdue sim of AA11's strong wings and tail section
killtown.blogspot.com/
This is the most absurd thing I have seen...EVER.
Purdue engineers created this simulation of AA11 crashing and penetrating all the way through the facade of the North WTC Tower. What a fine institution of higher learning:
Purdue sim of AA11's strong wings and tail section
killtown.blogspot.com/
This is the most absurd thing I have seen...EVER.
Daru
We all saw the aircraft punch big holes in the towers, or are you trying to say that that couldn't happen??? We've all seen pictures of straws and other lightweight things penetrating tree trunks after a tornado(winds<350 mph) so why are you having a problem understanding aluminum penetrating steel at ~500 mph??? The Purdue sim closely matches NIST's and reality, so ridiculous it is not.
Oh, by the way, Killtown is the LAST person to cite if reality is your goal. He claims there was no plane and is a complete *****!!!
Grumpy
We all saw the aircraft punch big holes in the towers, or are you trying to say that that couldn't happen??? We've all seen pictures of straws and other lightweight things penetrating tree trunks after a tornado(winds<350 mph) so why are you having a problem understanding aluminum penetrating steel at ~500 mph??? The Purdue sim closely matches NIST's and reality, so ridiculous it is not.
Oh, by the way, Killtown is the LAST person to cite if reality is your goal. He claims there was no plane and is a complete *****!!!
Grumpy
So I'm curious Daru.
What do you think caused the LOWER picture?
http://pharaqey.org/temp/purdue1.jpg
Do you think a steel car door will protect you from a soft lead bullet?
Do you think you could etch your name in your concrete driveway using just a household pressure washer?
Arthur
What do you think caused the LOWER picture?
http://pharaqey.org/temp/purdue1.jpg
Do you think a steel car door will protect you from a soft lead bullet?
Do you think you could etch your name in your concrete driveway using just a household pressure washer?
Arthur
While the NIST models were much more detailed, still the visualizations produced by the Purdue group do provide interesting insights.
I think one of the key ones is a better understanding of the fuel distribution.
Their visualization makes it pretty clear that while the WING tanks of the 767 failed when they impacted the exterior wall, the CENTRAL fuel tank did not line up with the floors/spandrels and so had its path into the building cleared by the front of the jet and thus much of the central fuel tank supply made it as a largely intact mass into the center of the towers.
You can also see the elevator shafts in the core get inundated with this fuel.
Arthur
I think one of the key ones is a better understanding of the fuel distribution.
Their visualization makes it pretty clear that while the WING tanks of the 767 failed when they impacted the exterior wall, the CENTRAL fuel tank did not line up with the floors/spandrels and so had its path into the building cleared by the front of the jet and thus much of the central fuel tank supply made it as a largely intact mass into the center of the towers.
You can also see the elevator shafts in the core get inundated with this fuel.
Arthur
adoucette: I admit that it is all complicated etc... but there is something very wrong here! And I can see that you think it is very strange too!!!
For example if someone look at the right wing damage at the end... 4 columns cut !!!
For example if someone look at the right wing damage at the end... 4 columns cut !!!
QUOTE (Daru+May 25 2007, 02:30 PM)
adoucette: I admit that it is all complicated etc... but there is something very wrong here! And I can see that you think it is very strange too!!!
For example if someone look at the right wing damage at the end... 4 columns cut !!!
No Daru, I don't think it is very strange.
In fact, it appears that what happened that day is understood to a very high level.
As to the damage:
Wing tips are VERY STRONG.
The Spars that run through them are VERY STRONG.
The steel in the columns at that height though are as thin as 6 mm.
Except for that Spandrel which is at FLOOR LEVEL and located just below those four cut columns.
Arthur
For example if someone look at the right wing damage at the end... 4 columns cut !!!
No Daru, I don't think it is very strange.
In fact, it appears that what happened that day is understood to a very high level.
As to the damage:
Wing tips are VERY STRONG.
The Spars that run through them are VERY STRONG.
The steel in the columns at that height though are as thin as 6 mm.
Except for that Spandrel which is at FLOOR LEVEL and located just below those four cut columns.
Arthur
The steel beam the strut) that the rest of a wing connects to is, arguably, the finest piece of steel manufactured. This beam is able to flex up and down for many, many duty cycles.
The spars form the outer shape of a wing once the aluminum panels are riveted to the spars. I don't know what these were made from in a 767. In older Boeing designs these were also aluminum, but again very strongly designed due to the intense wing loadings in a thunderstorm, etc.
Certification for a commercial airliner requires going out to a big thunderstorm and flying the plane through it. Usually when this is done, the interior of the aircraft is fitted with many strain guages.
Boeing's commercial airliners are, all told, marvels of strong, solid design.
The spars form the outer shape of a wing once the aluminum panels are riveted to the spars. I don't know what these were made from in a 767. In older Boeing designs these were also aluminum, but again very strongly designed due to the intense wing loadings in a thunderstorm, etc.
Certification for a commercial airliner requires going out to a big thunderstorm and flying the plane through it. Usually when this is done, the interior of the aircraft is fitted with many strain guages.
Boeing's commercial airliners are, all told, marvels of strong, solid design.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 25 2007, 03:31 PM)
Certification for a commercial airliner requires going out to a big thunderstorm and flying the plane through it. Usually when this is done, the interior of the aircraft is fitted with many strain guages.
Not anymore.
They DO test the wings to destruction though.
This video of the 777 test should give you an idea of the strengths of the wings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
It should also help others understand about the concept of EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS generated by exceeding STRAIN LIMITS in metal structures.
Arthur
Not anymore.
They DO test the wings to destruction though.
This video of the 777 test should give you an idea of the strengths of the wings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
It should also help others understand about the concept of EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS generated by exceeding STRAIN LIMITS in metal structures.
Arthur
There is of course nothing unphysical with a plane cutting through a strong building. Even small particles (space trash like some paint particles) can cut through a satellite if there is enough speed. I know that in a documentary even a university professor questioned this because he said that the wings etc are very leightweighted and then the energy is also not much in that case. But if you work it out I'm sure you find out it will work. If you are no no-planer there is no reason to assume there is something unphysical.
Here is a paper that seems to do the calculations
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...ft%20Impact.pdf
Here is a paper that seems to do the calculations
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...ft%20Impact.pdf
QUOTE (adoucette+May 25 2007, 08:46 PM)
They DO test the wings to destruction though.
An entire wing? (I can't watch the video.)
For the 747, two wing struts were tested to destruction, but not, AFAIK, an assembled wing.
Oh yes, in that case destruction meant large cracks formed in the struts. The tests stopped there, before the steel actually broke...
An entire wing? (I can't watch the video.)
For the 747, two wing struts were tested to destruction, but not, AFAIK, an assembled wing.
Oh yes, in that case destruction meant large cracks formed in the struts. The tests stopped there, before the steel actually broke...
QUOTE (einsteen+May 25 2007, 09:10 PM)
... he said that the wings etc are very leightweighted[sic] ...
I have forgotten the weight of a 767. Something like 80 tonnes.
What I do recall is that about 15% of that weight is steel. In order by weight, the major steel components are
wing struts
landing struts
engines
other
I have forgotten the weight of a 767. Something like 80 tonnes.
What I do recall is that about 15% of that weight is steel. In order by weight, the major steel components are
wing struts
landing struts
engines
other
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 25 2007, 04:10 PM)
An entire wing? (I can't watch the video.)
For the 747, two wing struts were tested to destruction, but not, AFAIK, an assembled wing.
Oh yes, in that case destruction meant large cracks formed in the struts. The tests stopped there, before the steel actually broke...
Actually they built one plane just for this test.
They tested both wings at the same time and as they were attached to the fuselage.
The wings failed at 154% of ultimate design load (They both failed at the essentially the same time).
The wings were bent up over 24 ft at the tips, so far that the stesses caused the fuselage skin to ripple.
Then they failed.
EXPLOSIVELY.
LOUDLY
You should copy this title down "Boeing 777 Wing Ultimate Load Test"
And when you are at someone's house that CAN play a video do a search on that name.
Trust me, it will be worth the three minutes.
Arthur
For the 747, two wing struts were tested to destruction, but not, AFAIK, an assembled wing.
Oh yes, in that case destruction meant large cracks formed in the struts. The tests stopped there, before the steel actually broke...
Actually they built one plane just for this test.
They tested both wings at the same time and as they were attached to the fuselage.
The wings failed at 154% of ultimate design load (They both failed at the essentially the same time).
The wings were bent up over 24 ft at the tips, so far that the stesses caused the fuselage skin to ripple.
Then they failed.
EXPLOSIVELY.
LOUDLY
You should copy this title down "Boeing 777 Wing Ultimate Load Test"
And when you are at someone's house that CAN play a video do a search on that name.
Trust me, it will be worth the three minutes.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 25 2007, 10:01 PM)
Boeing 777 Wing Ultimate Load Test
WOW!
Thirty years ago, or more, the issue was to determine how many duty cycles the 747 wing struts could take before cracks started to form. AFAIK, no 747 was similarly mistreated...
WOW!
Thirty years ago, or more, the issue was to determine how many duty cycles the 747 wing struts could take before cracks started to form. AFAIK, no 747 was similarly mistreated...
DBB, I was refering to this man, he is a Dr. Ir. (Ir=M.Sc for a technical university)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6624447947169635420
scroll to 12:45
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6624447947169635420
scroll to 12:45
QUOTE (einsteen+May 25 2007, 11:00 PM)
... he is a Dr. Ir. (Ir=M.Sc for a technical university)
(1) Dr. Ir. is rather more than an American M.S. A comparable degree, sometimes awarded, is a doctorate in Engineering, not quite a Ph.D.
(2) I can't watch videos!
(1) Dr. Ir. is rather more than an American M.S. A comparable degree, sometimes awarded, is a doctorate in Engineering, not quite a Ph.D.
(2) I can't watch videos!
You can't watch videos ? Are you working with lynx on a unix system ?
QUOTE (einsteen+May 25 2007, 11:29 PM)
... lynx on a unix system
What is lynx?
This machine is configured the way it is for research reasons. Isn't going to change.
What is lynx?
This machine is configured the way it is for research reasons. Isn't going to change.
QUOTE (einsteen+May 25 2007, 06:00 PM)
DBB, I was refering to this man, he is a Dr. Ir. (Ir=M.Sc for a technical university)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6624447947169635420
scroll to 12:45
How could 19 hijackers with PLASTIC KNIVES......
You GOT to be kidding me.
I highly doubt that your TYPICAL Dutch man or woman would believe this BS.
Arthur
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6624447947169635420
scroll to 12:45
How could 19 hijackers with PLASTIC KNIVES......
You GOT to be kidding me.
I highly doubt that your TYPICAL Dutch man or woman would believe this BS.
Arthur
From "Towers of Deception - The Media Cover-up of 9/11" by Barrie Zwicker.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zwicker applies the above list to a deconstruction of a post by Noam Chomsky at the "ChomskyChat Forum", on p. 206 of his book. It's worth reading.
It's clear that similar tactics have been employed on the physorg threads, and, indeed, at other "debunking" sites that I have visited. While I would caution against being too unforgiving in analyzing posts in terms of this list, as well as assuming that anybody who repeatedly uses such techniques must be a shill (and not just suffering from a combination of ego plus irrationality plus groupthink, e.g.), I think it might prove useful to refer back to this list (as well as the "logical fallacies" site recently posted by cerberus) and deconstruct some of the hogwash that gets posted here. Especially in the case of repeat offenders.
To the above list I would add
29 Confusing a plausibility argument with "proof"
30 Confusing evidence with "proof"
31 Pretending that a qualitative argument can suffice, absent serious arguments for such an attitude, which means that a quantitative argument/analysis is likely necessary
32 Hypocrisy and double standards
33 Major premises completely un-articulated (as opposed to Zwicker's #19, which implies under-emphasis)
34 Mistaking "chain of logic" type arguments, which are quite appropriate and required in mathematics, with cumulative arguments, even if parts of the cumulative arguments are themselves "chain of logic" type arguments.
35 Pretending that an argument is settled if the local debunking community says it is. This is a special case of "appeal to authority", though the "authority" is a particularly perverse one. (This is not so common at physorg, but rather obvious as bautforum and jref, e.g.)
BTW, I think Noam Chomsky is a brilliant intellectual, well worth reading. His failures and distortions wrt various conspiracies (not just 911) is a blot on his record, but fairness compels me to remind others of the body of his work. Even so, I would not quibble with the title that Zwicker chose for the chapter that the above list appears in: "The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left". While Chomsky has warned the left to not even spend time on 911 issues (p. 205), the failure to do so by activists means more of an intellectual disconnect with the beasts that they are up against, and thus more frustration and wasted effort.** Chomsky seems to want to shoehorn activists into respectable channels, but is doing so optimal? Methinks not, and even if it was, his distortions towards this end are intellectually dishonest - in a word, shameful.
While we can't know the true motivations and unconscious biases of any particular individual*, we can make the perfectly reasonable inference that the almost univeral rejection of conspiracies for which considerable evidence exists by the "left media" (here in the US) is not an accident or a coincidence, but reflects deliberate manipulation towards the observed end. Whether one calls this manipulation "planning", as Chomsky would, or "consipiracy", as Zwicker would, doesn't make a lot of difference. The effects are the same.
As the word "conspiracy" implies "hidden", moreso than "planning", I'll go with "conspiracy", also.
See leftgatekeepers.com for more on the gatekeeping phenomenon.
Activists who think that they can change some of the most important gatekeepers in government - our elected representatives - without radical changes in our corrupt media are, IMO, deluding themselves. I've yet to hear a convincing argument why, even if, say, 5 or 10 911 conspirators were thrown in jail, there could not be another 911 the very next day. (In fact, I don't think anybody has even answered the question, period.) 911 is symptomatic of a deeper, systemic corruption. Preventing future 911's has more to do with excising the entirety of the metastasized cancer of corruption, as opposed to removing one of many malignant tumors.
I would urge all activists to spend at least some of their time and energy solving the media problem, unless they can convince themselves that the ability of a corrupted and controlled media to lie, ignore, and distort indefinitely can somehow co-exist with an enlightened public which would know enough to decide which candidates are part of the solution, as opposed to part of the problem. An honest media that served as a watchdog on the government would have funded 911 research and investigative reporting, instead of served to ignore and belittle serious researchers. My own proposal is called "Putting the NY Times Out of Business", on the Randi Rhodes forum.:
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> Putting the NY Times Out of Business <<
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media
I have posted a proposal on the Randi Rhodes show forum for replacing our current media with a new, sustainable media that facilitates the selection of "filtering agents". You can think of these as honest gatekeepers that YOU trust - and that keep out trivial information, rather than very important information that groups with economic and other hidden agendas prefer to hide from you.
Broadband access is now up to 42% in the US, so it is quite possible to target TELEVISION, which is how about 48% of Americans get 30+ minutes of news per day (as opposed to only about 9% over the internet). See http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=282
The thread is entitled: "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
The thread is subtitled: "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
Link:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
* Well, we could know their true motivations if they tell us, and if we know that they're being honest. And how could we ascertain that?
** See, e.g., Ruppert's insightful comments at http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/u...stions_911.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
A partial list of his (Noam Chomsky's) propaganda techniques:
1 Absurdities
2 Ad hominem sallies
3 Bald assertions that are mis-statements
4 Bandwagon psychology
5 Bullying
6 Diminishment of the importance of the important
7 Dismissiveness
8 Diversions (e.g., not answering the question)
9 Failure to provide minimal evidence
10 Fake humility
11 Fake open-mindedness
12 False parallels
13 False syllogisms
14 Framing to exclude contrary outlooks
15 Ignorance flaunted as admirable
16 Inappropriate selectivity
17 Insinuation
18 Internal contradiction
19 Major premises hidden in passing
20 Misdirection
21 Misleading asides
22 Mixing apples and oranges
23 Obfuscation
24 Restriction of options
25 Scare tactics
26 Setting up straw men
27 Sweeping generalizations
28 Word inflation
1 Absurdities
2 Ad hominem sallies
3 Bald assertions that are mis-statements
4 Bandwagon psychology
5 Bullying
6 Diminishment of the importance of the important
7 Dismissiveness
8 Diversions (e.g., not answering the question)
9 Failure to provide minimal evidence
10 Fake humility
11 Fake open-mindedness
12 False parallels
13 False syllogisms
14 Framing to exclude contrary outlooks
15 Ignorance flaunted as admirable
16 Inappropriate selectivity
17 Insinuation
18 Internal contradiction
19 Major premises hidden in passing
20 Misdirection
21 Misleading asides
22 Mixing apples and oranges
23 Obfuscation
24 Restriction of options
25 Scare tactics
26 Setting up straw men
27 Sweeping generalizations
28 Word inflation
Zwicker applies the above list to a deconstruction of a post by Noam Chomsky at the "ChomskyChat Forum", on p. 206 of his book. It's worth reading.
It's clear that similar tactics have been employed on the physorg threads, and, indeed, at other "debunking" sites that I have visited. While I would caution against being too unforgiving in analyzing posts in terms of this list, as well as assuming that anybody who repeatedly uses such techniques must be a shill (and not just suffering from a combination of ego plus irrationality plus groupthink, e.g.), I think it might prove useful to refer back to this list (as well as the "logical fallacies" site recently posted by cerberus) and deconstruct some of the hogwash that gets posted here. Especially in the case of repeat offenders.
To the above list I would add
29 Confusing a plausibility argument with "proof"
30 Confusing evidence with "proof"
31 Pretending that a qualitative argument can suffice, absent serious arguments for such an attitude, which means that a quantitative argument/analysis is likely necessary
32 Hypocrisy and double standards
33 Major premises completely un-articulated (as opposed to Zwicker's #19, which implies under-emphasis)
34 Mistaking "chain of logic" type arguments, which are quite appropriate and required in mathematics, with cumulative arguments, even if parts of the cumulative arguments are themselves "chain of logic" type arguments.
35 Pretending that an argument is settled if the local debunking community says it is. This is a special case of "appeal to authority", though the "authority" is a particularly perverse one. (This is not so common at physorg, but rather obvious as bautforum and jref, e.g.)
BTW, I think Noam Chomsky is a brilliant intellectual, well worth reading. His failures and distortions wrt various conspiracies (not just 911) is a blot on his record, but fairness compels me to remind others of the body of his work. Even so, I would not quibble with the title that Zwicker chose for the chapter that the above list appears in: "The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left". While Chomsky has warned the left to not even spend time on 911 issues (p. 205), the failure to do so by activists means more of an intellectual disconnect with the beasts that they are up against, and thus more frustration and wasted effort.** Chomsky seems to want to shoehorn activists into respectable channels, but is doing so optimal? Methinks not, and even if it was, his distortions towards this end are intellectually dishonest - in a word, shameful.
While we can't know the true motivations and unconscious biases of any particular individual*, we can make the perfectly reasonable inference that the almost univeral rejection of conspiracies for which considerable evidence exists by the "left media" (here in the US) is not an accident or a coincidence, but reflects deliberate manipulation towards the observed end. Whether one calls this manipulation "planning", as Chomsky would, or "consipiracy", as Zwicker would, doesn't make a lot of difference. The effects are the same.
As the word "conspiracy" implies "hidden", moreso than "planning", I'll go with "conspiracy", also.
See leftgatekeepers.com for more on the gatekeeping phenomenon.
Activists who think that they can change some of the most important gatekeepers in government - our elected representatives - without radical changes in our corrupt media are, IMO, deluding themselves. I've yet to hear a convincing argument why, even if, say, 5 or 10 911 conspirators were thrown in jail, there could not be another 911 the very next day. (In fact, I don't think anybody has even answered the question, period.) 911 is symptomatic of a deeper, systemic corruption. Preventing future 911's has more to do with excising the entirety of the metastasized cancer of corruption, as opposed to removing one of many malignant tumors.
I would urge all activists to spend at least some of their time and energy solving the media problem, unless they can convince themselves that the ability of a corrupted and controlled media to lie, ignore, and distort indefinitely can somehow co-exist with an enlightened public which would know enough to decide which candidates are part of the solution, as opposed to part of the problem. An honest media that served as a watchdog on the government would have funded 911 research and investigative reporting, instead of served to ignore and belittle serious researchers. My own proposal is called "Putting the NY Times Out of Business", on the Randi Rhodes forum.:
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> Putting the NY Times Out of Business <<
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media
I have posted a proposal on the Randi Rhodes show forum for replacing our current media with a new, sustainable media that facilitates the selection of "filtering agents". You can think of these as honest gatekeepers that YOU trust - and that keep out trivial information, rather than very important information that groups with economic and other hidden agendas prefer to hide from you.
Broadband access is now up to 42% in the US, so it is quite possible to target TELEVISION, which is how about 48% of Americans get 30+ minutes of news per day (as opposed to only about 9% over the internet). See http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=282
The thread is entitled: "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
The thread is subtitled: "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
Link:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
* Well, we could know their true motivations if they tell us, and if we know that they're being honest. And how could we ascertain that?
** See, e.g., Ruppert's insightful comments at http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/u...stions_911.html
A former Northwest Airlines pilot and an ex Scholar for Truth are alleging that the World Trade Center buildings were packed with rocket fuel disguised as ceiling tiles, and that remotely piloted planes packed with the same incendiaries set the sequence of destruction in motion. They have filed a lawsuit against a long list of corporate and government officials. The former Scholar for Truth, David Hawkins, claims that Larry Silverstein was a victim of an insurance fraud scheme perpetrated by Al Gore and Bill Clinton.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hawkscafe/message/169
http://www.captainsherlock.com/102.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hawkscafe/message/169
http://www.captainsherlock.com/102.html
A partial list of Conspiracy Theorist's propaganda techniques:
1 Absurdities(Thermite Fairies)
2 Ad hominem sallies(anyone who doesn't buy into your paranoid fantasies must be a gov't shill)
3 Bald assertions that are mis-statements(there were no planes)
4 Bandwagon psychology(It's all a gov't conspiracy)
5 Bullying
6 Diminishment of the importance of the important(Such as a complete lack of evidence for explosives)
7 Dismissiveness(no building in history has colapsed due to being hit by an airliner)
8 Diversions (e.g., not answering the question)
9 Failure to provide minimal evidence(Or any, see 6)
10 Fake humility
11 Fake open-mindedness
12 False parallels
13 False syllogisms
14 Framing to exclude contrary outlooks(if it's not A or B it must be explosives)
15 Ignorance flaunted as admirable(everything on a CTer site)
16 Inappropriate selectivity(cherry picking)
17 Insinuation("You must be "in on it")
18 Internal contradiction(A book all by itself)
19 Major premises hidden in passing(Like how explosives survive the impacts and fires)
20 Misdirection
21 Misleading asides
22 Mixing apples and oranges
23 Obfuscation
24 Restriction of options(such as "It couldn't possibly be anything but explosives!!!)
25 Scare tactics("The gov't is out to get us")
26 Setting up straw men(Jet fuel cannot melt steel!!!)
27 Sweeping generalizations(It all the_____(put favorite scapegoat here)'s fault)
28 Word inflation( "Pull it")
It's clear that similar tactics have been employed on the 911research site, and, indeed, at other CT sites that I have visited. While I would caution against being too unforgiving in analyzing posts in terms of this list, as well as assuming that anybody who repeatedly uses such techniques must be an idiot (and not just suffering from a combination of ego plus irrationality plus paranoid delusions, e.g.), I think it might prove useful to refer back to this list (as well as the "logical fallacies" site recently posted by cerberus) and deconstruct some of the hogwash that gets posted there. Especially in the case of repeat offenders.
Other tactics used by Conspiracy kooks...
29 Confusing a total lack of plausibility with "proof"
30 Confusing a total lack of evidence with "proof"
31 Pretending that quantity of BS is equal to quality of logic
32 Hypocrisy and double standards
33 Major premises completely loonytoons.
34 Mistaking "connecting-of-unrelated-dots" type arguments, which are never appropriate or required in logical discourse.
35 Pretending that an argument is not settled even if all the available evidence says it is. This is a special case of "Terminal Stupidity" that seems to be contracted by the viewing of "loose Change" or attendence of a "troother" conference. A perfect example is notsoquick's firetruck.
Grumpy
1 Absurdities(Thermite Fairies)
2 Ad hominem sallies(anyone who doesn't buy into your paranoid fantasies must be a gov't shill)
3 Bald assertions that are mis-statements(there were no planes)
4 Bandwagon psychology(It's all a gov't conspiracy)
5 Bullying
6 Diminishment of the importance of the important(Such as a complete lack of evidence for explosives)
7 Dismissiveness(no building in history has colapsed due to being hit by an airliner)
8 Diversions (e.g., not answering the question)
9 Failure to provide minimal evidence(Or any, see 6)
10 Fake humility
11 Fake open-mindedness
12 False parallels
13 False syllogisms
14 Framing to exclude contrary outlooks(if it's not A or B it must be explosives)
15 Ignorance flaunted as admirable(everything on a CTer site)
16 Inappropriate selectivity(cherry picking)
17 Insinuation("You must be "in on it")
18 Internal contradiction(A book all by itself)
19 Major premises hidden in passing(Like how explosives survive the impacts and fires)
20 Misdirection
21 Misleading asides
22 Mixing apples and oranges
23 Obfuscation
24 Restriction of options(such as "It couldn't possibly be anything but explosives!!!)
25 Scare tactics("The gov't is out to get us")
26 Setting up straw men(Jet fuel cannot melt steel!!!)
27 Sweeping generalizations(It all the_____(put favorite scapegoat here)'s fault)
28 Word inflation( "Pull it")
It's clear that similar tactics have been employed on the 911research site, and, indeed, at other CT sites that I have visited. While I would caution against being too unforgiving in analyzing posts in terms of this list, as well as assuming that anybody who repeatedly uses such techniques must be an idiot (and not just suffering from a combination of ego plus irrationality plus paranoid delusions, e.g.), I think it might prove useful to refer back to this list (as well as the "logical fallacies" site recently posted by cerberus) and deconstruct some of the hogwash that gets posted there. Especially in the case of repeat offenders.
Other tactics used by Conspiracy kooks...
29 Confusing a total lack of plausibility with "proof"
30 Confusing a total lack of evidence with "proof"
31 Pretending that quantity of BS is equal to quality of logic
32 Hypocrisy and double standards
33 Major premises completely loonytoons.
34 Mistaking "connecting-of-unrelated-dots" type arguments, which are never appropriate or required in logical discourse.
35 Pretending that an argument is not settled even if all the available evidence says it is. This is a special case of "Terminal Stupidity" that seems to be contracted by the viewing of "loose Change" or attendence of a "troother" conference. A perfect example is notsoquick's firetruck.
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+May 25 2007, 07:36 PM)
No Daru, I don't think it is very strange.
In fact, it appears that what happened that day is understood to a very high level.
As to the damage:
Wing tips are VERY STRONG.
The Spars that run through them are VERY STRONG.
The steel in the columns at that height though are as thin as 6 mm.
Except for that Spandrel which is at FLOOR LEVEL and located just below those four cut columns.
Arthur
Indeed. The wings are massive too. One single wing weigh 8.4 metric tons when empty of fuel. The wing chord at tip is 7 feet 6 inches. (While at root it is 28 feet)
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/...oeing_767.shtml
NISTNCSTAR 1-2B Chaps1-8
p.77
In fact, it appears that what happened that day is understood to a very high level.
As to the damage:
Wing tips are VERY STRONG.
The Spars that run through them are VERY STRONG.
The steel in the columns at that height though are as thin as 6 mm.
Except for that Spandrel which is at FLOOR LEVEL and located just below those four cut columns.
Arthur
Indeed. The wings are massive too. One single wing weigh 8.4 metric tons when empty of fuel. The wing chord at tip is 7 feet 6 inches. (While at root it is 28 feet)
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/...oeing_767.shtml
NISTNCSTAR 1-2B Chaps1-8
p.77
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 25 2007, 06:34 PM)
35 Pretending that an argument is not settled even if all the available evidence says it is. This is a special case of "Terminal Stupidity" that seems to be contracted by the viewing of "loose Change" or attendence of a "troother" conference. A perfect example is notsoquick's firetruck.
Grumpy
You mean this firetruck, Mr. Snow White Protector? (BTW, you might see it better if you'd take off those Elvis shades of yours, Slick.)
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
"Terminal Stupidity"? Yeah, you must be an expert on that subject.
Did you used to teach it?
HAUGHTY EYES AND A PROUD HEART
THE LAMP OF THE WICKED
IS SIN
QUOTE (adoucette+May 25 2007, 08:46 PM)
Not anymore.
They DO test the wings to destruction though.
This video of the 777 test should give you an idea of the strengths of the wings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
It should also help others understand about the concept of EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS generated by exceeding STRAIN LIMITS in metal structures.
Arthur
YOUTUBE?
Arthur
when it breaks, it shatters into ribbons.
it is no longer an effective cutting tool at that point.
so, if the wings of the 'plane' at the pentagon supposedly folded forward into the 16 ft. hole, or got sucked into the hole behind the plane, but did not instantly shatter into ribbons, like we see in this vid, at 3:35., THEN(lol at my edit) why did the shattered wings at the pentagon not land outside, as they obviously did not slice the reinforced pentagon wall like a hot knife through butter?
all complicated lies IMPLODE.
They DO test the wings to destruction though.
This video of the 777 test should give you an idea of the strengths of the wings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
It should also help others understand about the concept of EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS generated by exceeding STRAIN LIMITS in metal structures.
Arthur
YOUTUBE?
Arthur
when it breaks, it shatters into ribbons.
it is no longer an effective cutting tool at that point.
so, if the wings of the 'plane' at the pentagon supposedly folded forward into the 16 ft. hole, or got sucked into the hole behind the plane, but did not instantly shatter into ribbons, like we see in this vid, at 3:35., THEN(lol at my edit) why did the shattered wings at the pentagon not land outside, as they obviously did not slice the reinforced pentagon wall like a hot knife through butter?
all complicated lies IMPLODE.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 25 2007, 10:01 PM)
Then they failed.
EXPLOSIVELY.
LOUDLY
Arthur
twice, ........................., ..., ....... with a big pause between?
ie. as recorded from the building across the street?
EXPLOSIVELY.
LOUDLY
Arthur
twice, ........................., ..., ....... with a big pause between?
ie. as recorded from the building across the street?
QUOTE (quicknthedead+May 26 2007, 06:13 AM)
You mean this firetruck, Mr. Snow White Protector? (BTW, you might see it better if you'd take off those Elvis shades of yours, Slick.)
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
"Terminal Stupidity"? Yeah, you must be an expert on that subject.
Did you used to teach it?
HAUGHTY EYES AND A PROUD HEART
THE LAMP OF THE WICKED
IS SIN
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 25 2007, 11:41 PM)
What is lynx?
This machine is configured the way it is for research reasons. Isn't going to change.
Lynx is a text-only browser, when I was a student we had it on the UNIX systems. Ok DBB, Sorry I understand you use your computer at work. You are a real scientist of course and no youtube-scientist
Arthur.
Plastic knives ? I was not refering to that... if you watch the whole documentary not much is left from Loose Change. I remember only wtc7, put options and Able Danger.
This machine is configured the way it is for research reasons. Isn't going to change.
Lynx is a text-only browser, when I was a student we had it on the UNIX systems. Ok DBB, Sorry I understand you use your computer at work. You are a real scientist of course and no youtube-scientist
Arthur.
Plastic knives ? I was not refering to that... if you watch the whole documentary not much is left from Loose Change. I remember only wtc7, put options and Able Danger.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+May 26 2007, 06:13 AM)
You mean this firetruck, Mr. Snow White Protector? (BTW, you might see it better if you'd take off those Elvis shades of yours, Slick.)
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
"Terminal Stupidity"? Yeah, you must be an expert on that subject.
Did you used to teach it?
HAUGHTY EYES AND A PROUD HEART
THE LAMP OF THE WICKED
IS SIN
I've seen this picture a couple of times, what is it exactly and what is the point ?
QUOTE (newton+May 26 2007, 01:58 AM)
YOUTUBE?
Arthur
when it breaks, it shatters into ribbons.
it is no longer an effective cutting tool at that point.
so, if the wings of the 'plane' at the pentagon supposedly folded forward into the 16 ft. hole, or got sucked into the hole behind the plane, but did not instantly shatter into ribbons, like we see in this vid, at 3:35., THEN(lol at my edit) why did the shattered wings at the pentagon not land outside, as they obviously did not slice the reinforced pentagon wall like a hot knife through butter?
all complicated lies IMPLODE.
Take it (and your distortions of reality) to the Pentagon thread.
oh and while I posted a short YT video showing a SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT that pertains to our discussions, YOU, when asked how you KNOW that John O'Neil was MURDERED, post an hour long YT diatribe on 'Who killed John O'Neill'., as if it contained any actual EVIDENCE.
Big Difference.
Interesting that you can't see the difference though.
Arthur
Arthur
when it breaks, it shatters into ribbons.
it is no longer an effective cutting tool at that point.
so, if the wings of the 'plane' at the pentagon supposedly folded forward into the 16 ft. hole, or got sucked into the hole behind the plane, but did not instantly shatter into ribbons, like we see in this vid, at 3:35., THEN(lol at my edit) why did the shattered wings at the pentagon not land outside, as they obviously did not slice the reinforced pentagon wall like a hot knife through butter?
all complicated lies IMPLODE.
Take it (and your distortions of reality) to the Pentagon thread.
oh and while I posted a short YT video showing a SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT that pertains to our discussions, YOU, when asked how you KNOW that John O'Neil was MURDERED, post an hour long YT diatribe on 'Who killed John O'Neill'., as if it contained any actual EVIDENCE.
Big Difference.
Interesting that you can't see the difference though.
Arthur
A partial list of Conspiracy Theorist's propaganda techniques:
12 False parallels (No steel building has ever collapsed from fire)
12 False parallels (No steel building has ever collapsed from fire)
einsteen
Notsoquick claims the video was taken from a firetruck, not an SUV as the videographer said, and is therefore fraudulent. His "evidence" is that he sees the reflection of the firetrucks lightbar in the back window of the BMW in the closeup. It is not a reflection, it is the third brake light of that particular model.
The reason nsq is so desperate to cast doubt on this video is this video contains scenes of both impacts, is time stamped(accurately, it turns out) and is continuous. It proves that the times Craig claimed in his paper are inaccurate and therefore his claim that explosions occured PRIOR to impact is false.
Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross's paper (note: Times given as exact in this document have been proven innaccurate, in part by the video in question)
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Seismic..._Inside_Job.doc
notsoquick
I'm sure you and the Web Fairy make a cute couple, but there is no firetruck(or it's lightbar) reflected in that poor BMW's rear window, just it's own third brake light.
Seek professional help, I would suggest...
http://www.fundamentalists-anonymous.org/
Grumpy
QUOTE
I've seen this picture a couple of times, what is it exactly and what is the point ?
Notsoquick claims the video was taken from a firetruck, not an SUV as the videographer said, and is therefore fraudulent. His "evidence" is that he sees the reflection of the firetrucks lightbar in the back window of the BMW in the closeup. It is not a reflection, it is the third brake light of that particular model.
The reason nsq is so desperate to cast doubt on this video is this video contains scenes of both impacts, is time stamped(accurately, it turns out) and is continuous. It proves that the times Craig claimed in his paper are inaccurate and therefore his claim that explosions occured PRIOR to impact is false.
Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross's paper (note: Times given as exact in this document have been proven innaccurate, in part by the video in question)
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Seismic..._Inside_Job.doc
notsoquick
I'm sure you and the Web Fairy make a cute couple, but there is no firetruck(or it's lightbar) reflected in that poor BMW's rear window, just it's own third brake light.
Seek professional help, I would suggest...
http://www.fundamentalists-anonymous.org/
Grumpy
QUOTE (einsteen+May 26 2007, 04:36 AM)
QUOTE
(quicknthedead @ May 26 2007, 06:13 AM)
You mean this firetruck, Mr. Snow White Protector? (BTW, you might see it better if you'd take off those Elvis shades of yours, Slick.)
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
"Terminal Stupidity"? Yeah, you must be an expert on that subject.
Did you used to teach it?
HAUGHTY EYES AND A PROUD HEART
THE LAMP OF THE WICKED
IS SIN
You mean this firetruck, Mr. Snow White Protector? (BTW, you might see it better if you'd take off those Elvis shades of yours, Slick.)
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
"Terminal Stupidity"? Yeah, you must be an expert on that subject.
Did you used to teach it?
HAUGHTY EYES AND A PROUD HEART
THE LAMP OF THE WICKED
IS SIN
I've seen this picture a couple of times, what is it exactly and what is the point ?
It has to do with this link
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...70&#entry161333
where adoucette, Grumpy, 911myths.com, etc., offer the lame excuse that this firetruck's reflection is not a reflection at all, but merely the rear brake light of the car in front.
(And they say I'm desperate.)
The fraudulent Pavel Hlava video relates directly to “Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/mirrored/craigfurlong/
Summarized as:
“Plane Impact” Times: Incriminating Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Complicity
The official times for plane "impact" [precise to the second] as declared by the US Government, from both the 9/11 Commission and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), are different and yet both are true and accurate times. What can this factual contradiction mean? Looking exclusively at WTC1, there is found a causal link:
One World Trade, September 11, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11 “impact” time:
8:46:30 UTC, per LDEO seismic data (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005)
8:46:40 UTC, per FAA last primary radar contact*** (9/11 Commission Final Report, 2004)
Q- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event that occurred 10 seconds before the actual aircrash at 8:46:40?
A- The only possibility is huge explosions, as corroborated by many eyewitnesses at the time.
Q- Who caused these explosions before the plane hit?
Notes:
In 2004, the 9/11 Commission avoided addressing the earlier seismic event time (which had been, in error, attributed by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, originally in 2001 as “plane impact”).
In 2005, NIST avoided addressing the 9/11 Commission’s later time for the aircraft’s actual impact time.
Both the 9/11 Commission and NIST avoided addressing the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements before the plane crashed.
This precise data has yet to be refuted. It is from the two governmental entities charged with looking into what happened on 9/11, and both declared these times accurate, and in so doing corroborate William Rodriguez and the many eyewitnesses the morning of 9/11 who testified of explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before American Airlines Flight 11 struck the building. This is indicting evidence of governmental coverup and complicity, and calls for a new 9/11 investigation, except this time a real one.
***{Additional supporting information on this radar contact}:
http://www.studyof911.com/forum/index.php?...=findpost&p=664
http://www.studyof911.com/forum/index.php?...=findpost&p=665
"There is an appointed time for everything,
And there is a time for every event under heaven"
- Ecclesiastes 3:1
QUOTE (quicknthedead+May 26 2007, 11:58 AM)
The fraudulent Pavel Hlava video
You WISH.
Arthur
You WISH.
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 26 2007, 08:47 AM)
notsoquick
I'm sure you and the Web Fairy make a cute couple, but there is no firetruck(or it's lightbar) reflected in that poor BMW's rear window, just it's own third brake light.
Seek professional help, I would suggest...
http://www.fundamentalists-anonymous.org/
Grumpy
I have nothing to do with Webfairy, Mr. Dwarf, and you, by denying the obvious emergency vehicle reflection, need to become intellectually honest. You attack me {ad hominem} and deny the obvious {lack of conformity to truth or fact; outright falsehood}.
We all need help in life, but I would suggest you and Capracus, instead of asking me to seek professional help, read the Bible. Instead of "attacking" me because I am a Christian who shares quotes from the Bible, why don't you stick to 9/11. Attacking the messenger is a logic fallacy. In addition, attacking me for being a Christian makes me rejoice in my Savior (He said this would happen).
Finally, if the Bible is false, and you ignore what it says about Jesus and eternity, you are fine.
But if the Bible is true, and you ignore what it says about God's Son, you will not be saved and will not like the consequences.
Jesus Christ: "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
AND THERE IS SALVATION IN NO ONE ELSE
FOR THERE IS NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN AMONG MEN BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED
einsteen
Another thing notsoquick fails to mention is the probability that the final radar return was of the fireball and the aluminum cladding from the building and pieces of the aircraft. In WW2 Allied aircraft dropped strips of aluminum foil out of bombers to jam the Axis radars, it was called window(google window, foil). So the return on the radars continued ~ 10 seconds after impacts, easily(and logically) explaining the time differential Craig makes so much of when he claims explosives going off BEFORE the aircraft impacts.
According to the Hlava video the impact time of the first aircraft was precisely 8:46:30
According to seismic records the impact was 8:46:30
Craig gives a final radar return of 8:46:40. As explained above, that may be accurate, but it is ~10 seconds after impact, so the whole basis of Craig's paper is totally falsified by the video, thus his pathetic and doomed attempts to get others to see a firetruck, even his domestic partner Web Fairy seems to have lost interest in beating this dead horse, most of the links are dead on the page posted by Craig.
Which brings me to another subject....FLEAS.
It is said that if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Why is it that so many of the "troother" sites are infested with malware??? I run Adaware softwear cleaner after every session where I have visited sites posted by "troothers" and get trackers and other unwanted malware almost every time!!! The worst seem to be Web Fairy, Plauge Puppy and all the "Scholar" sites. After a long session it starts to noticable eat my bandwidth and I once had 208 trackers and other more malivent software loaded on my computer in one day of research!!!
Yes, I do need a better firewall, any suggestions???
Is your computer slowing down??? I strongly recomend Ad-Aware SE from Lavasoft!!!!! The personal edition is a free download and you too will be amazed and horrified at the number of trackers and pop-ups you can eliminate.
Grumpy
Another thing notsoquick fails to mention is the probability that the final radar return was of the fireball and the aluminum cladding from the building and pieces of the aircraft. In WW2 Allied aircraft dropped strips of aluminum foil out of bombers to jam the Axis radars, it was called window(google window, foil). So the return on the radars continued ~ 10 seconds after impacts, easily(and logically) explaining the time differential Craig makes so much of when he claims explosives going off BEFORE the aircraft impacts.
According to the Hlava video the impact time of the first aircraft was precisely 8:46:30
According to seismic records the impact was 8:46:30
Craig gives a final radar return of 8:46:40. As explained above, that may be accurate, but it is ~10 seconds after impact, so the whole basis of Craig's paper is totally falsified by the video, thus his pathetic and doomed attempts to get others to see a firetruck, even his domestic partner Web Fairy seems to have lost interest in beating this dead horse, most of the links are dead on the page posted by Craig.
Which brings me to another subject....FLEAS.
It is said that if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Why is it that so many of the "troother" sites are infested with malware??? I run Adaware softwear cleaner after every session where I have visited sites posted by "troothers" and get trackers and other unwanted malware almost every time!!! The worst seem to be Web Fairy, Plauge Puppy and all the "Scholar" sites. After a long session it starts to noticable eat my bandwidth and I once had 208 trackers and other more malivent software loaded on my computer in one day of research!!!
Yes, I do need a better firewall, any suggestions???
Is your computer slowing down??? I strongly recomend Ad-Aware SE from Lavasoft!!!!! The personal edition is a free download and you too will be amazed and horrified at the number of trackers and pop-ups you can eliminate.
Grumpy
einsteen
As I stated, the red "reflection" Craig claims is easily seen to be the third brake light of the BMW. The angle of it's rear glass also precludes any reflection of the vehicle behind it. CASE CLOSED.
notsoquick
I really don't care who your domestic partner is, but it is you who needs to become intellectually honest. It is obvious that you are trying to see what it impossible for you to see IE a reflection in the back window of a BMW that you desperately NEED to be a firetruck. It is a lie.
I really don't care who your domestic partner is, but it is you who needs to become intellectually honest. It is obvious that you are trying to see what it impossible for you to see IE a reflection in the back window of a BMW that you desperately NEED to be a firetruck. It is a lie.
We all need help in life, but I would suggest you and Capracus, instead of asking me to seek professional help, read the Bible. Instead of "attacking" me because I am a Christian who shares quotes from the Bible, why don't you stick to 9/11. Attacking the messenger is a logic fallacy. In addition, attacking me for being a Christian makes me rejoice in my Savior (He said this would happen).
My father was a Southern Baptist preacher and missionary, I grew up "marinated in the blood" so to say. I seriously doubt there are many in this world who have read and studied the Bible(and many other religious texts) to the extent I have.
One thing(in this case) I am quite certain of is that you have used the Lord's name in vain(for your own purposes) trying to wrap your illusions with your faith, a definite no-no(it is one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, after all) and it is this for which you have earned my contempt, not your religious beliefs. By your own lights, being a liar-for-Jesus will NOT get you into Heaven, quite the opposite. It seems God and Jesus had quite a bit to say about hypocrites and false Christians, maybe you should look to your own salvation instead of worrying about mine.
Grumpy
As I stated, the red "reflection" Craig claims is easily seen to be the third brake light of the BMW. The angle of it's rear glass also precludes any reflection of the vehicle behind it. CASE CLOSED.
notsoquick
QUOTE
I have nothing to do with Webfairy, Mr. Dwarf, and you, by denying the obvious emergency vehicle reflection, need to become intellectually honest. You attack me {ad hominem} and deny the obvious {lack of conformity to truth or fact; outright falsehood}.
I really don't care who your domestic partner is, but it is you who needs to become intellectually honest. It is obvious that you are trying to see what it impossible for you to see IE a reflection in the back window of a BMW that you desperately NEED to be a firetruck. It is a lie.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have nothing to do with Webfairy, Mr. Dwarf, and you, by denying the obvious emergency vehicle reflection, need to become intellectually honest. You attack me {ad hominem} and deny the obvious {lack of conformity to truth or fact; outright falsehood}. |
I really don't care who your domestic partner is, but it is you who needs to become intellectually honest. It is obvious that you are trying to see what it impossible for you to see IE a reflection in the back window of a BMW that you desperately NEED to be a firetruck. It is a lie.
We all need help in life, but I would suggest you and Capracus, instead of asking me to seek professional help, read the Bible. Instead of "attacking" me because I am a Christian who shares quotes from the Bible, why don't you stick to 9/11. Attacking the messenger is a logic fallacy. In addition, attacking me for being a Christian makes me rejoice in my Savior (He said this would happen).
My father was a Southern Baptist preacher and missionary, I grew up "marinated in the blood" so to say. I seriously doubt there are many in this world who have read and studied the Bible(and many other religious texts) to the extent I have.
One thing(in this case) I am quite certain of is that you have used the Lord's name in vain(for your own purposes) trying to wrap your illusions with your faith, a definite no-no(it is one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, after all) and it is this for which you have earned my contempt, not your religious beliefs. By your own lights, being a liar-for-Jesus will NOT get you into Heaven, quite the opposite. It seems God and Jesus had quite a bit to say about hypocrites and false Christians, maybe you should look to your own salvation instead of worrying about mine.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 26 2007, 11:50 AM)
Is your computer slowing down??? I strongly recomend Ad-Aware SE from Lavasoft!!!!! The personal edition is a free download and you too will be amazed and horrified at the number of trackers and pop-ups you can eliminate.
Grumpster,
I use it after almost every online session, just in case... which can be three times a day. I always let it check for updates before running the scan.
I also keep "Spybot: Search and Destroy" up-to-date and run it occasionally, but it never finds anything that AdAware SE missed, and it takes longer to scan... meaning I like AdAware SE better.
Grumpster,
I use it after almost every online session, just in case... which can be three times a day. I always let it check for updates before running the scan.
I also keep "Spybot: Search and Destroy" up-to-date and run it occasionally, but it never finds anything that AdAware SE missed, and it takes longer to scan... meaning I like AdAware SE better.
There are only a couple of things that make this theory implausible, other than the thousand or so obvious ones.
One, Osama bin Laden admitted to plotting and carrying out these attacks. There are films showing him with the hijackers before 9/11. So even if the Bush administration was behind the attacks, they were carried out by Al Queda.
That means that bin Laden is working for the CIA.
Which isn't itself all that unlikely, if you consider his past. He was a rich-kid son of a family that was friends with the Bush family, and Bush, Sr., was head of the CIA before he became President. It would've been perfectly natural for the CIA to try to recruit him.
So, by all means, any terrorist-wannabe out there promoting this myth, go ahead and float the idea to your terrorist-friends/contacts that bin Laden is a CIA stooge. (Have fun getting your head cut off with a dull machete!)
The other point is that the Bay Bridge in San Francisco had a fire a few weeks ago which caused the steel structure to collapse, and this was witnessed right out in the open. No thermite/explosives were needed nor witnessed there. So maybe jet fuel *can* weaken steel to the point it collapses. The fuel tanker that caused the collapse was carrying a small fraction of the amount of fuel the planes were carrying.
Incidentally, steel buildings collapse during fires so often that it isn't considered "news". That's why they require fire insulation on all structural steel members in all high-rises, it's to provide the occupants with more time to escape during a fire before the building collapses. If burning jet fuel didn't weaken steel, we'd use it in jet engines. We don't, we use high-temperature alloys that cost a lot more. Steel would fail in a jet engine. No thermite needed.
One, Osama bin Laden admitted to plotting and carrying out these attacks. There are films showing him with the hijackers before 9/11. So even if the Bush administration was behind the attacks, they were carried out by Al Queda.
That means that bin Laden is working for the CIA.
Which isn't itself all that unlikely, if you consider his past. He was a rich-kid son of a family that was friends with the Bush family, and Bush, Sr., was head of the CIA before he became President. It would've been perfectly natural for the CIA to try to recruit him.
So, by all means, any terrorist-wannabe out there promoting this myth, go ahead and float the idea to your terrorist-friends/contacts that bin Laden is a CIA stooge. (Have fun getting your head cut off with a dull machete!)
The other point is that the Bay Bridge in San Francisco had a fire a few weeks ago which caused the steel structure to collapse, and this was witnessed right out in the open. No thermite/explosives were needed nor witnessed there. So maybe jet fuel *can* weaken steel to the point it collapses. The fuel tanker that caused the collapse was carrying a small fraction of the amount of fuel the planes were carrying.
Incidentally, steel buildings collapse during fires so often that it isn't considered "news". That's why they require fire insulation on all structural steel members in all high-rises, it's to provide the occupants with more time to escape during a fire before the building collapses. If burning jet fuel didn't weaken steel, we'd use it in jet engines. We don't, we use high-temperature alloys that cost a lot more. Steel would fail in a jet engine. No thermite needed.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 26 2007, 10:50 AM)
einsteen
Another thing notsoquick fails to mention is the probability that the final radar return was of the fireball and the aluminum cladding from the building and pieces of the aircraft. In WW2 Allied aircraft dropped strips of aluminum foil out of bombers to jam the Axis radars, it was called window(google window, foil). So the return on the radars continued ~ 10 seconds after impacts, easily(and logically) explaining the time differential Craig makes so much of when he claims explosives going off BEFORE the aircraft impacts.
Why comment on a fanciful idea of zero substance of no probability? Where is Grumpy's proof to back up his wild theory about the final radar contact of AA Flt 11 being due to the building's flaming explosion? In addition, he bases this upon, of all things, chaff used in WWII to jam radar receivers so that real returns could not be identified. He should study chaff and the kind of clutter it shows on radar as opposed to viable targets being tracked on modern-day radar equipment and the frequencies involved. Now he is sounding like a literal "tin-foil" conspiracy theorist.
According to the Hlava video the impact time of the first aircraft was precisely 8:46:30
To reiterate, the Hlava video is based in fraud (not a wish, but a fact, adoucette), and this is important because of the video's timestamp.
To reiterate, the Hlava video is based in fraud (not a wish, but a fact, adoucette), and this is important because of the video's timestamp.
According to seismic records the impact was 8:46:30.
This correlates with the explosions experienced by Rodriguez and the others.
Craig gives a final radar return of 8:46:40. As explained above, that may be accurate,
It is accurate (9/11 Commission, NTSB, FAA).
It is accurate (9/11 Commission, NTSB, FAA).
but it is ~10 seconds after impact, so the whole basis of Craig's paper is totally falsified by the video, thus his pathetic and doomed attempts to get others to see a firetruck,
The paper is not falsified by a fraudulent video, and while Grumpy does not "see" the firetruck reflection, I see it plain as day.
Let the reader decide. After you watch it a few times, it is unmistakable.
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
even his domestic partner Web Fairy seems to have lost interest in beating this dead horse, most of the links are dead on the page posted by Craig.
I am no partner whatsoever with Rosalee Grable or other "no-planers". I have never contacted her and do not care if the links on her page are outdated. All I wanted to do was show the clip of the firetruck's image being reflected; you know, the one that Grumpy can't "see".
{aside}
I am no partner whatsoever with Rosalee Grable or other "no-planers". I have never contacted her and do not care if the links on her page are outdated. All I wanted to do was show the clip of the firetruck's image being reflected; you know, the one that Grumpy can't "see".
{aside}
even his domestic partner Web Fairy
Your odious remark is duly noted, scum-mouth. You have now made this same, false insinuation twice, about Gordon Ross and now Rosalee Grable. This behavior of yours makes me wonder just what kind of a teacher you really were when you "taught" kids. Oh well, as my dad used to say, "Class will tell." That goes for "no class" too, pal.
To conclude, there was an approximate 10-second interval between the seismic event and when the plane crashed, and this interval is explained perfectly by the explosions eyewitnesses experienced in WTC1's Sub-Basements before the plane struck. The seismic signal validates the witnesses who testified of the explosions before the plane struck, and the eyewitnesses validate the explanation of this seismic signal. This is a causal link of prime evidence.
WHEN A MAN'S WAYS ARE PLEASING TO THE LORD
HE MAKES EVEN HIS ENEMIES TO BE AT PEACE WITH HIM
notsoquick
I really don't care who your domestic partner is, but it is you who needs to become intellectually honest. It is obvious that you are trying to see what it impossible for you to see IE a reflection in the back window of a BMW that you desperately NEED to be a firetruck. It is a lie.
My father was a Southern Baptist preacher and missionary, I grew up "marinated in the blood" so to say. I seriously doubt there are many in this world who have read and studied the Bible(and many other religious texts) to the extent I have.
One thing(in this case) I am quite certain of is that you have used the Lord's name in vain(for your own purposes) trying to wrap your illusions with your faith, a definite no-no(it is one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, after all) and it is this for which you have earned my contempt, not your religious beliefs. By your own lights, being a liar-for-Jesus will NOT get you into Heaven, quite the opposite. It seems God and Jesus had quite a bit to say about hypocrites and false Christians, maybe you should look to your own salvation instead of worrying about mine.
Grumpy
I believe it is you who is acting the hypocrite and being intellectually dishonest.
God loves it when His children share His word with others. And yet you attack me for doing so. This is not pleasing Him.
He wants us to be like Him, like Jesus, and does not want any to perish. I agree with Him. We have all sinned and are all sinners, and yet I have never lied in anything I have presented here regarding 9/11. I look at the facts and decide like every one. But you try to disallow my position because of the Scripture I share and call me a liar-for-Jesus?
Here's the deal, Mr. Snow White Protector. The most important thing in this life on earth is coming to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as Savior. This is the truth according to the Bible, and is more important than 9/11. This is why I plant His word at the end of my posts.
So where are you coming from? You have a problem with me sharing the Word...and yet you call yourself a Christian? I am having a hard time believing you are one in view of what you have written.
Based upon Scripture, salvation is not based upon works, but upon faith in Jesus as Savior. So, you could be one, a (closet) Christian...I don't know...but you certainly don't act like one.
Your ideas in your third paragraph above, in view of the Bible, are hogwash. You did not learn as much as you thought you did from your study of the Bible when you were growing up. But cheer up, it is never too late.
For this forum, keep it to 9/11, quit making your logic fallacies, and stop making comments about the Scripture I post, for they are strictly bonus for one and all.
I.e., keep it civil and show some class.
Got it?
SANCTIFY THEM IN THY TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
AND YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH
AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE
Another thing notsoquick fails to mention is the probability that the final radar return was of the fireball and the aluminum cladding from the building and pieces of the aircraft. In WW2 Allied aircraft dropped strips of aluminum foil out of bombers to jam the Axis radars, it was called window(google window, foil). So the return on the radars continued ~ 10 seconds after impacts, easily(and logically) explaining the time differential Craig makes so much of when he claims explosives going off BEFORE the aircraft impacts.
Why comment on a fanciful idea of zero substance of no probability? Where is Grumpy's proof to back up his wild theory about the final radar contact of AA Flt 11 being due to the building's flaming explosion? In addition, he bases this upon, of all things, chaff used in WWII to jam radar receivers so that real returns could not be identified. He should study chaff and the kind of clutter it shows on radar as opposed to viable targets being tracked on modern-day radar equipment and the frequencies involved. Now he is sounding like a literal "tin-foil" conspiracy theorist.
QUOTE
According to the Hlava video the impact time of the first aircraft was precisely 8:46:30
To reiterate, the Hlava video is based in fraud (not a wish, but a fact, adoucette), and this is important because of the video's timestamp.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
According to the Hlava video the impact time of the first aircraft was precisely 8:46:30 |
To reiterate, the Hlava video is based in fraud (not a wish, but a fact, adoucette), and this is important because of the video's timestamp.
According to seismic records the impact was 8:46:30.
This correlates with the explosions experienced by Rodriguez and the others.
QUOTE
Craig gives a final radar return of 8:46:40. As explained above, that may be accurate,
It is accurate (9/11 Commission, NTSB, FAA).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Craig gives a final radar return of 8:46:40. As explained above, that may be accurate, |
It is accurate (9/11 Commission, NTSB, FAA).
but it is ~10 seconds after impact, so the whole basis of Craig's paper is totally falsified by the video, thus his pathetic and doomed attempts to get others to see a firetruck,
The paper is not falsified by a fraudulent video, and while Grumpy does not "see" the firetruck reflection, I see it plain as day.
Let the reader decide. After you watch it a few times, it is unmistakable.
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
QUOTE
even his domestic partner Web Fairy seems to have lost interest in beating this dead horse, most of the links are dead on the page posted by Craig.
I am no partner whatsoever with Rosalee Grable or other "no-planers". I have never contacted her and do not care if the links on her page are outdated. All I wanted to do was show the clip of the firetruck's image being reflected; you know, the one that Grumpy can't "see".
{aside}
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
even his domestic partner Web Fairy seems to have lost interest in beating this dead horse, most of the links are dead on the page posted by Craig. |
I am no partner whatsoever with Rosalee Grable or other "no-planers". I have never contacted her and do not care if the links on her page are outdated. All I wanted to do was show the clip of the firetruck's image being reflected; you know, the one that Grumpy can't "see".
{aside}
even his domestic partner Web Fairy
Your odious remark is duly noted, scum-mouth. You have now made this same, false insinuation twice, about Gordon Ross and now Rosalee Grable. This behavior of yours makes me wonder just what kind of a teacher you really were when you "taught" kids. Oh well, as my dad used to say, "Class will tell." That goes for "no class" too, pal.
To conclude, there was an approximate 10-second interval between the seismic event and when the plane crashed, and this interval is explained perfectly by the explosions eyewitnesses experienced in WTC1's Sub-Basements before the plane struck. The seismic signal validates the witnesses who testified of the explosions before the plane struck, and the eyewitnesses validate the explanation of this seismic signal. This is a causal link of prime evidence.
WHEN A MAN'S WAYS ARE PLEASING TO THE LORD
HE MAKES EVEN HIS ENEMIES TO BE AT PEACE WITH HIM
WCelliot:
The word "steel" is like the word "food"..... it's kind of generic and can mean a lot of different things. Let's talk about WTC steel. Could I soften it on my barbeque?
Could I melt it with flaming jet fuel?
The word "steel" is like the word "food"..... it's kind of generic and can mean a lot of different things. Let's talk about WTC steel. Could I soften it on my barbeque?
Could I melt it with flaming jet fuel?
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 26 2007, 11:20 AM)
notsoquick
I really don't care who your domestic partner is, but it is you who needs to become intellectually honest. It is obvious that you are trying to see what it impossible for you to see IE a reflection in the back window of a BMW that you desperately NEED to be a firetruck. It is a lie.
My father was a Southern Baptist preacher and missionary, I grew up "marinated in the blood" so to say. I seriously doubt there are many in this world who have read and studied the Bible(and many other religious texts) to the extent I have.
One thing(in this case) I am quite certain of is that you have used the Lord's name in vain(for your own purposes) trying to wrap your illusions with your faith, a definite no-no(it is one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, after all) and it is this for which you have earned my contempt, not your religious beliefs. By your own lights, being a liar-for-Jesus will NOT get you into Heaven, quite the opposite. It seems God and Jesus had quite a bit to say about hypocrites and false Christians, maybe you should look to your own salvation instead of worrying about mine.
Grumpy
I believe it is you who is acting the hypocrite and being intellectually dishonest.
God loves it when His children share His word with others. And yet you attack me for doing so. This is not pleasing Him.
He wants us to be like Him, like Jesus, and does not want any to perish. I agree with Him. We have all sinned and are all sinners, and yet I have never lied in anything I have presented here regarding 9/11. I look at the facts and decide like every one. But you try to disallow my position because of the Scripture I share and call me a liar-for-Jesus?
Here's the deal, Mr. Snow White Protector. The most important thing in this life on earth is coming to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as Savior. This is the truth according to the Bible, and is more important than 9/11. This is why I plant His word at the end of my posts.
So where are you coming from? You have a problem with me sharing the Word...and yet you call yourself a Christian? I am having a hard time believing you are one in view of what you have written.
Based upon Scripture, salvation is not based upon works, but upon faith in Jesus as Savior. So, you could be one, a (closet) Christian...I don't know...but you certainly don't act like one.
Your ideas in your third paragraph above, in view of the Bible, are hogwash. You did not learn as much as you thought you did from your study of the Bible when you were growing up. But cheer up, it is never too late.
For this forum, keep it to 9/11, quit making your logic fallacies, and stop making comments about the Scripture I post, for they are strictly bonus for one and all.
I.e., keep it civil and show some class.
Got it?
SANCTIFY THEM IN THY TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
AND YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH
AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE
I wonder if you can help me out.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the official theory for why the world trade center and WTC7 collapsed at nearly free fall speed is that the heat of the fires in those buildings, plus structural damage, weakened at least one floor; and then the floors above the damage crashed through the floors below the damage, all the way to the ground, under only the force of gravity. Additionally this theory accounts for material ejected horizontally during the collapse by the pressure of condensed air pushed laterally by the collapse.
This theory proposes that the mass of the collapsing part increased with the addition of more dislocated floors, and that the velocity of the collapse increased against the resistance of the lower structure, and that the momentum of the collapse increased more rapidly with its vertical descent. All of this is necessary to account for the nearly free fall speed of the collapse, i.e. nearly the same speed as an object falling in a vacuum, an observation which is agreed upon by the official account, and multiple video and seismic measurements.
But the official theory leaves many questions unanswered.
First of all, how does the velocity of the collapse increase against resistance from the lower structure, considering that free fall speed is the maximum falling speed in a vacuum of any object no matter what the mass of the object?
Secondly how does the momentum of the collapse increase more rapidly if the mass of the collapse is increasing, considering that more massive objects gain momentum more slowly than less massive objects, according to the conservation of momentum?
Thirdly wouldn't an increase in the rate of the momentum change mean that an outside force must be acting on the collapse, since the rate of change of momentum is the force of gravity, and the net force of gravity of a closed system is constant according to the conservation of energy?
Fourthly how does the collapse compress air despite the largely open core which should allow the air to escape without resistance?
Fifthly how does compressed air eject heavy perimeter columns as far as 450 feet horizontally, into the World Financial Center 3?
Sixthly if the fire is so widespread that all of the columns, interior and exterior of at least one floor failed then why is the fire not visible around the entire perimeter of the building?
Seventhly if the steel was heated to the point that it weakened then why was the steel not glowing hot?
Lastly, how does this collapse hypothesis account for the pulverization of the buildings?
Thanks for your assistance.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the official theory for why the world trade center and WTC7 collapsed at nearly free fall speed is that the heat of the fires in those buildings, plus structural damage, weakened at least one floor; and then the floors above the damage crashed through the floors below the damage, all the way to the ground, under only the force of gravity. Additionally this theory accounts for material ejected horizontally during the collapse by the pressure of condensed air pushed laterally by the collapse.
This theory proposes that the mass of the collapsing part increased with the addition of more dislocated floors, and that the velocity of the collapse increased against the resistance of the lower structure, and that the momentum of the collapse increased more rapidly with its vertical descent. All of this is necessary to account for the nearly free fall speed of the collapse, i.e. nearly the same speed as an object falling in a vacuum, an observation which is agreed upon by the official account, and multiple video and seismic measurements.
But the official theory leaves many questions unanswered.
First of all, how does the velocity of the collapse increase against resistance from the lower structure, considering that free fall speed is the maximum falling speed in a vacuum of any object no matter what the mass of the object?
Secondly how does the momentum of the collapse increase more rapidly if the mass of the collapse is increasing, considering that more massive objects gain momentum more slowly than less massive objects, according to the conservation of momentum?
Thirdly wouldn't an increase in the rate of the momentum change mean that an outside force must be acting on the collapse, since the rate of change of momentum is the force of gravity, and the net force of gravity of a closed system is constant according to the conservation of energy?
Fourthly how does the collapse compress air despite the largely open core which should allow the air to escape without resistance?
Fifthly how does compressed air eject heavy perimeter columns as far as 450 feet horizontally, into the World Financial Center 3?
Sixthly if the fire is so widespread that all of the columns, interior and exterior of at least one floor failed then why is the fire not visible around the entire perimeter of the building?
Seventhly if the steel was heated to the point that it weakened then why was the steel not glowing hot?
Lastly, how does this collapse hypothesis account for the pulverization of the buildings?
Thanks for your assistance.
QUOTE (Oneismany+May 27 2007, 12:53 AM)
... collapsed at nearly free fall speed ...
First, there is no such thing as 'free fall speed'. There is free fall, or free fall acceleration, due to the unimpeded force of gravity.
Second, NEU-FONZE posted his measurements for the drop of the tops of the towers for the first few seconds. The best fit to this data for the acceleration is
WTC 1: (2/3) g
WTC 2: (3/4) g
both of which indicate resistance to the fall and neither of which is 'nearly free fall'.
All of the rest of your questions have been dealt with, in great detail, either earlier in this thread or in the previous two threads.
A good treatment can be found on the Debunking911 site, which links to other sites with different perspectives.
In brief summary, NIST prepared an extensive report on the events and causes leading up to the towers' collapses. Once initiated, known physics explains all aspects of the collapses, excepting throwing the exterior wall columns so far. This small point remains the only open issue. One possibility is that this is a sort of slingshot effect as the exterior walls peel off to fall over, with the air pressure being a (minor) contributor.
First, there is no such thing as 'free fall speed'. There is free fall, or free fall acceleration, due to the unimpeded force of gravity.
Second, NEU-FONZE posted his measurements for the drop of the tops of the towers for the first few seconds. The best fit to this data for the acceleration is
WTC 1: (2/3) g
WTC 2: (3/4) g
both of which indicate resistance to the fall and neither of which is 'nearly free fall'.
All of the rest of your questions have been dealt with, in great detail, either earlier in this thread or in the previous two threads.
A good treatment can be found on the Debunking911 site, which links to other sites with different perspectives.
In brief summary, NIST prepared an extensive report on the events and causes leading up to the towers' collapses. Once initiated, known physics explains all aspects of the collapses, excepting throwing the exterior wall columns so far. This small point remains the only open issue. One possibility is that this is a sort of slingshot effect as the exterior walls peel off to fall over, with the air pressure being a (minor) contributor.
notsoquick
My religious views are irrelivant on this forum, JUST AS YOURS SHOULD BE. The veracity of my arguements are not inhanced by claiming the support of a diety, NOR ARE YOURS. I would not be a superior example of a human being if I wrapped my opinions in scripture, JUST AS YOU ARE NOT A BETTER PERSON, MORE ACCURATE OR LESS CAPABLE OF ERROR. In fact, using the Lord's name to try to bolster your lies is what I have called Lying-for-Jesus. It is the same thing as putting a fish symbol on a sale advertisement. Jesus doesn't do celebrity endorsements and he has not given you permission to use his name or his word to promote your lies.
My religious views are irrelivant on this forum, JUST AS YOURS SHOULD BE. The veracity of my arguements are not inhanced by claiming the support of a diety, NOR ARE YOURS. I would not be a superior example of a human being if I wrapped my opinions in scripture, JUST AS YOU ARE NOT A BETTER PERSON, MORE ACCURATE OR LESS CAPABLE OF ERROR. In fact, using the Lord's name to try to bolster your lies is what I have called Lying-for-Jesus. It is the same thing as putting a fish symbol on a sale advertisement. Jesus doesn't do celebrity endorsements and he has not given you permission to use his name or his word to promote your lies.
For this forum, keep it to 9/11, quit making your logic fallacies, and stop making comments about the Scripture I post, for they are strictly bonus for one and all.
For this forum, keep it to 911, quit posting your irrelivent scripture and stop using scripture to make snide comments about others or to try to support your lies. Used in this way they are poison for one and all.
Grumpy
That is a point of contention here. As we all know, NIST didn't consider events after "collapse initiation". OCTers here will usually point you towards Frank Greening's paper "ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE" which attempts to prove that there was enough kinetic energy in the descending "upper block" to overcome the resistance of "1-floor".
http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html
http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Unfortunately the floors were not just sitting there in mid air waiting to be crushed independently. The upper block would have fallen onto the lower block as a whole with its vertical core and perimeter columns reaching from the impact zone to the ground. So you cannot just consider events 1-floor at a time. The energy may have been present, but noone has proposed a mechanism whereby the energy of the upper block is able to be concentrated a floor or 3 below the impact zone with the structure underneath sustaining no damage.
Jim Hoffman has a challenge that nobody seems to be able to complete to build a structure that will collapse in the strange "progressive" manner. And there haven't been any FEA models done that show the collapse. So I guess the simple answer to your question is: we don't know.
That is a point of contention here. As we all know, NIST didn't consider events after "collapse initiation". OCTers here will usually point you towards Frank Greening's paper "ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE" which attempts to prove that there was enough kinetic energy in the descending "upper block" to overcome the resistance of "1-floor".
http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html
http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Unfortunately the floors were not just sitting there in mid air waiting to be crushed independently. The upper block would have fallen onto the lower block as a whole with its vertical core and perimeter columns reaching from the impact zone to the ground. So you cannot just consider events 1-floor at a time. The energy may have been present, but noone has proposed a mechanism whereby the energy of the upper block is able to be concentrated a floor or 3 below the impact zone with the structure underneath sustaining no damage.
Jim Hoffman has a challenge that nobody seems to be able to complete to build a structure that will collapse in the strange "progressive" manner. And there haven't been any FEA models done that show the collapse. So I guess the simple answer to your question is: we don't know.
Secondly how does the momentum of the collapse increase more rapidly if the mass of the collapse is increasing, considering that more massive objects gain momentum more slowly than less massive objects, according to the conservation of momentum?
I'm not quite sure I understand fully your point here, but the momentum gain of the upper block was due to gravity and as the acceleration of an object in a gravity field does not depend on its mass (m*a = m*g => a=g) a heavier object would gain more momentum (m*v) over time than a lighter one in the same field.
see previous
see previous
Fourthly how does the collapse compress air despite the largely open core which should allow the air to escape without resistance?
I don't think the space in the core matters - where would the air go? The idea is that the perimeter structure of the WTC would act like the outer shell of a piston. But this whole piston idea was just an afterthought thrown in by Bazant/Zhou to try to explain the "squibs", it's not really a serious, scientifically proven notion.
I don't know if anyone would claim that compressed air caused this horizontal force on the perimeter columns. I think an OCT'er would claim that it's more of a buckling/snapping type phenomena cause by the upper block crushing down on the lower block. Or - popular in this forum - is the "wedge-in" theory where the upper block (of equal dimensions to the lower block) somehow wedges itself into the lower block and the lower perimeter columns simply "peel away" (floor by floor, or 3floors at a time). But again, these are just after the fact postulates to try and explain the observations, we are woefully lacking in any scientific papers or FEA models that predict this kind of behavior.
I don't know if anyone would claim that compressed air caused this horizontal force on the perimeter columns. I think an OCT'er would claim that it's more of a buckling/snapping type phenomena cause by the upper block crushing down on the lower block. Or - popular in this forum - is the "wedge-in" theory where the upper block (of equal dimensions to the lower block) somehow wedges itself into the lower block and the lower perimeter columns simply "peel away" (floor by floor, or 3floors at a time). But again, these are just after the fact postulates to try and explain the observations, we are woefully lacking in any scientific papers or FEA models that predict this kind of behavior.
Sixthly if the fire is so widespread that all of the columns, interior and exterior of at least one floor failed then why is the fire not visible around the entire perimeter of the building?
Seventhly if the steel was heated to the point that it weakened then why was the steel not glowing hot?
NIST really relies on the fires causing floor sagging that results in the failure (through pull-in by the floors) of core columns. The weight of the tower is then redistributed onto the perimeter columns which eventually fail. I believe the fires are only key in causing the floor sagging in the NIST scenario, with the plane damage and weight redistribution causing the rest.
Also, in order to explain the different durations between the WTC1&2 plane hits and collapses NIST has the fires migrating around the core columns and exposing the floors to fires in each tower for about equal times - and thus same sagging - before the collapses.
It's up to you to determine if this NIST scenario is plausible.
Greening has done some work on this to show that there was sufficient energy (in the upper block kinetic energy) to achieve the pulverization. But like for the floor by floor progressive collapse, we do not really have a precise mechanism for this to happen even if the energetics are there.
Anyway, welcome to the forum! There are some good questions there that have not been satisfactorily answered - especially not by NIST.
And don't be too put off by the insults and put downs that will inevitably follow. :)
But heavier objects also have more inertia than lighter objects, reducing their increase in momentum even as velocity increases. The force of gravity is mass times the acceleration due to gravity, but force is also proportional to the distance between the center of the Earth and the center of the falling object. Although it is a minuscule effect compared to the gravity of the Earth, an object gaining mass will gain gravity too, pulling the Earth toward it slightly. A gain in mass means a slower gain in momentum. Acceleration is a vector, it doesn't matter what direction you're moving in, or what force is moving you, the more massive you are the slower you gain momentum and the slower you lose momentum.
Here, you're just illustrating my point about the high school physics.
It isn't wise to accuse people of committing mass murder based only on your lack of understanding physical phenomena.
I apply physics for a living, and I've looked at the "evidence", and there's nothing there whatsoever that isn't exactly as I'd expect it to be.
There are no mysteries here, only the physics that you don't understand.
Here, you're just illustrating my point about the high school physics.
It isn't wise to accuse people of committing mass murder based only on your lack of understanding physical phenomena.
I apply physics for a living, and I've looked at the "evidence", and there's nothing there whatsoever that isn't exactly as I'd expect it to be.
There are no mysteries here, only the physics that you don't understand.
really.
wow.
'cause, i've looked at the evidence, and i think your 'blowgun' is hilarious.
the perimeter trees, 3 thirty six ft. columns, and three spandrel plates connecting them, weighed 22 tons, and didn't have feathers or sails attached to them. maybe you should have picked unopened coke can as your example.
say, applied physics guy, when two bodies of equal mass collide, what happens?
what has more inertia? 80 storeys of tower, with a mass of 400, 000 tonnes, or the, say, 50,000 tonne 'cap'? which of these two pieces is rooted into bedrock seven storeys below the earth?
remember, too, the strength of the tower was pyramidal. the core columns were over fifty inches thick at the root, and FAR thinner at the top.
if connections are going to break from impacts, they will break nearly one for one, 'crush up/crush down', and the collapse front will act like a crumple zone in car accident, and the intact portion of the tower, which still has all it's connections parallel or perpindicular to gravity, as designed, unlike the tilting, freely moving 'caps', which have axial stresses placed on all their connections that they were not designed for.
and which way does heat go? up. so, the lightest, weakest, most compromised link, is the cap.
that means, collapse should be arrested, and much of the 'cap' should have slid off the side, continuing it's angular momentum vectors.
please, do not be so demeaning. this is a physics site. people come here to discuss physics. this, 'i am smarter than you' CRAP doesn't work here. there are others in the world who apply physics for a living, who find the collapses IMPOSSIBLE without an external energy source.
not to mention that you have already proven yourself to be a naked emperor, with your comparison of the SF bridge fire collapse.
p.s. WELCOME, Oneismany. your 'high school physics' are awesome.
QUOTE
So where are you coming from? You have a problem with me sharing the Word...and yet you call yourself a Christian? I am having a hard time believing you are one in view of what you have written.
My religious views are irrelivant on this forum, JUST AS YOURS SHOULD BE. The veracity of my arguements are not inhanced by claiming the support of a diety, NOR ARE YOURS. I would not be a superior example of a human being if I wrapped my opinions in scripture, JUST AS YOU ARE NOT A BETTER PERSON, MORE ACCURATE OR LESS CAPABLE OF ERROR. In fact, using the Lord's name to try to bolster your lies is what I have called Lying-for-Jesus. It is the same thing as putting a fish symbol on a sale advertisement. Jesus doesn't do celebrity endorsements and he has not given you permission to use his name or his word to promote your lies.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So where are you coming from? You have a problem with me sharing the Word...and yet you call yourself a Christian? I am having a hard time believing you are one in view of what you have written. |
My religious views are irrelivant on this forum, JUST AS YOURS SHOULD BE. The veracity of my arguements are not inhanced by claiming the support of a diety, NOR ARE YOURS. I would not be a superior example of a human being if I wrapped my opinions in scripture, JUST AS YOU ARE NOT A BETTER PERSON, MORE ACCURATE OR LESS CAPABLE OF ERROR. In fact, using the Lord's name to try to bolster your lies is what I have called Lying-for-Jesus. It is the same thing as putting a fish symbol on a sale advertisement. Jesus doesn't do celebrity endorsements and he has not given you permission to use his name or his word to promote your lies.
For this forum, keep it to 9/11, quit making your logic fallacies, and stop making comments about the Scripture I post, for they are strictly bonus for one and all.
For this forum, keep it to 911, quit posting your irrelivent scripture and stop using scripture to make snide comments about others or to try to support your lies. Used in this way they are poison for one and all.
Grumpy
Are you suggesting that the steel supporting the WTC towers was as strong at the temperatures of the WTC fires as it was at nominal temperatures?
Or do you think that the steel would have to be molten before the structure failed?
Steel framed buildings collapse all the time, and fires burn hotter than you think.
Unlike what you seem to believe, the architects of the WTC used only as much steel to support it as they thought would be necessary. Their calculations would've been based on nominal steel strength, which degrades as temperatures increase.
That's why blacksmiths make steel red hot before trying to work it.
Fuel doesn't burn at a single temperature, either. When fuel burns, it releases heat. Heat makes an environment hotter than it was, it doesn't raise it to one specific temperature and stop. The first few seconds' worth of jet fuel raised the environment to one temperature, the next fuel to burn raised it further. Smoke is a pretty good insulator, preventing the IR from the fire from leaving the building. That fire was undoubtedly much hotter than most people seem to think, and it certainly had no "upper-limit" temperature just because it was fed jet fuel.
What do you think happened to the Bay Bridge?
Or do you think that the steel would have to be molten before the structure failed?
Steel framed buildings collapse all the time, and fires burn hotter than you think.
Unlike what you seem to believe, the architects of the WTC used only as much steel to support it as they thought would be necessary. Their calculations would've been based on nominal steel strength, which degrades as temperatures increase.
That's why blacksmiths make steel red hot before trying to work it.
Fuel doesn't burn at a single temperature, either. When fuel burns, it releases heat. Heat makes an environment hotter than it was, it doesn't raise it to one specific temperature and stop. The first few seconds' worth of jet fuel raised the environment to one temperature, the next fuel to burn raised it further. Smoke is a pretty good insulator, preventing the IR from the fire from leaving the building. That fire was undoubtedly much hotter than most people seem to think, and it certainly had no "upper-limit" temperature just because it was fed jet fuel.
What do you think happened to the Bay Bridge?
QUOTE
First of all, how does the velocity of the collapse increase against resistance from the lower structure, considering that free fall speed is the maximum falling speed in a vacuum of any object no matter what the mass of the object?
That is a point of contention here. As we all know, NIST didn't consider events after "collapse initiation". OCTers here will usually point you towards Frank Greening's paper "ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE" which attempts to prove that there was enough kinetic energy in the descending "upper block" to overcome the resistance of "1-floor".
http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html
http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Unfortunately the floors were not just sitting there in mid air waiting to be crushed independently. The upper block would have fallen onto the lower block as a whole with its vertical core and perimeter columns reaching from the impact zone to the ground. So you cannot just consider events 1-floor at a time. The energy may have been present, but noone has proposed a mechanism whereby the energy of the upper block is able to be concentrated a floor or 3 below the impact zone with the structure underneath sustaining no damage.
Jim Hoffman has a challenge that nobody seems to be able to complete to build a structure that will collapse in the strange "progressive" manner. And there haven't been any FEA models done that show the collapse. So I guess the simple answer to your question is: we don't know.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| First of all, how does the velocity of the collapse increase against resistance from the lower structure, considering that free fall speed is the maximum falling speed in a vacuum of any object no matter what the mass of the object? |
That is a point of contention here. As we all know, NIST didn't consider events after "collapse initiation". OCTers here will usually point you towards Frank Greening's paper "ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE" which attempts to prove that there was enough kinetic energy in the descending "upper block" to overcome the resistance of "1-floor".
http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html
http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Unfortunately the floors were not just sitting there in mid air waiting to be crushed independently. The upper block would have fallen onto the lower block as a whole with its vertical core and perimeter columns reaching from the impact zone to the ground. So you cannot just consider events 1-floor at a time. The energy may have been present, but noone has proposed a mechanism whereby the energy of the upper block is able to be concentrated a floor or 3 below the impact zone with the structure underneath sustaining no damage.
Jim Hoffman has a challenge that nobody seems to be able to complete to build a structure that will collapse in the strange "progressive" manner. And there haven't been any FEA models done that show the collapse. So I guess the simple answer to your question is: we don't know.
Secondly how does the momentum of the collapse increase more rapidly if the mass of the collapse is increasing, considering that more massive objects gain momentum more slowly than less massive objects, according to the conservation of momentum?
I'm not quite sure I understand fully your point here, but the momentum gain of the upper block was due to gravity and as the acceleration of an object in a gravity field does not depend on its mass (m*a = m*g => a=g) a heavier object would gain more momentum (m*v) over time than a lighter one in the same field.
QUOTE
Thirdly wouldn't an increase in the rate of the momentum change mean that an outside force must be acting on the collapse, since the rate of change of momentum is the force of gravity, and the net force of gravity of a closed system is constant according to the conservation of energy?
see previous
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thirdly wouldn't an increase in the rate of the momentum change mean that an outside force must be acting on the collapse, since the rate of change of momentum is the force of gravity, and the net force of gravity of a closed system is constant according to the conservation of energy? |
see previous
Fourthly how does the collapse compress air despite the largely open core which should allow the air to escape without resistance?
I don't think the space in the core matters - where would the air go? The idea is that the perimeter structure of the WTC would act like the outer shell of a piston. But this whole piston idea was just an afterthought thrown in by Bazant/Zhou to try to explain the "squibs", it's not really a serious, scientifically proven notion.
QUOTE
Fifthly how does compressed air eject heavy perimeter columns as far as 450 feet horizontally, into the World Financial Center 3?
I don't know if anyone would claim that compressed air caused this horizontal force on the perimeter columns. I think an OCT'er would claim that it's more of a buckling/snapping type phenomena cause by the upper block crushing down on the lower block. Or - popular in this forum - is the "wedge-in" theory where the upper block (of equal dimensions to the lower block) somehow wedges itself into the lower block and the lower perimeter columns simply "peel away" (floor by floor, or 3floors at a time). But again, these are just after the fact postulates to try and explain the observations, we are woefully lacking in any scientific papers or FEA models that predict this kind of behavior.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Fifthly how does compressed air eject heavy perimeter columns as far as 450 feet horizontally, into the World Financial Center 3? |
I don't know if anyone would claim that compressed air caused this horizontal force on the perimeter columns. I think an OCT'er would claim that it's more of a buckling/snapping type phenomena cause by the upper block crushing down on the lower block. Or - popular in this forum - is the "wedge-in" theory where the upper block (of equal dimensions to the lower block) somehow wedges itself into the lower block and the lower perimeter columns simply "peel away" (floor by floor, or 3floors at a time). But again, these are just after the fact postulates to try and explain the observations, we are woefully lacking in any scientific papers or FEA models that predict this kind of behavior.
Sixthly if the fire is so widespread that all of the columns, interior and exterior of at least one floor failed then why is the fire not visible around the entire perimeter of the building?
Seventhly if the steel was heated to the point that it weakened then why was the steel not glowing hot?
NIST really relies on the fires causing floor sagging that results in the failure (through pull-in by the floors) of core columns. The weight of the tower is then redistributed onto the perimeter columns which eventually fail. I believe the fires are only key in causing the floor sagging in the NIST scenario, with the plane damage and weight redistribution causing the rest.
Also, in order to explain the different durations between the WTC1&2 plane hits and collapses NIST has the fires migrating around the core columns and exposing the floors to fires in each tower for about equal times - and thus same sagging - before the collapses.
It's up to you to determine if this NIST scenario is plausible.
QUOTE
Lastly, how does this collapse hypothesis account for the pulverization of the buildings?
Greening has done some work on this to show that there was sufficient energy (in the upper block kinetic energy) to achieve the pulverization. But like for the floor by floor progressive collapse, we do not really have a precise mechanism for this to happen even if the energetics are there.
Anyway, welcome to the forum! There are some good questions there that have not been satisfactorily answered - especially not by NIST.
And don't be too put off by the insults and put downs that will inevitably follow. :)
[QUOTE]All of the rest of your questions have been dealt with, in great detail, either earlier in this thread or in the previous two threads.[/QUOTE]
I have searched in vain for succinct answers to these questions. If they have been answered then it should be a simple matter to provide a brief summary.
[QUOTE]A good treatment can be found on the Debunking911 site, which links to other sites with different perspectives.[/QUOTE]
I have come to this forum because I would like answers in this forum, not a redirection to somewhere else.
[QUOTE]Once initiated, known physics explains all aspects of the collapses, excepting throwing the exterior wall columns so far.[/QUOTE]
Good. Then it should be easy for known physics to provide succinct summaries to my questions.
[QUOTE]This small point remains the only open issue. One possibility is that this is a sort of slingshot effect as the exterior walls peel off to fall over, with the air pressure being a (minor) contributor.[/QUOTE]
If every other question has been answered, then this should be easily explained. If it is yet unexplained, then how is it a small matter?[/QUOTE]
I have searched in vain for succinct answers to these questions. If they have been answered then it should be a simple matter to provide a brief summary.
[QUOTE]A good treatment can be found on the Debunking911 site, which links to other sites with different perspectives.[/QUOTE]
I have come to this forum because I would like answers in this forum, not a redirection to somewhere else.
[QUOTE]Once initiated, known physics explains all aspects of the collapses, excepting throwing the exterior wall columns so far.[/QUOTE]
Good. Then it should be easy for known physics to provide succinct summaries to my questions.
[QUOTE]This small point remains the only open issue. One possibility is that this is a sort of slingshot effect as the exterior walls peel off to fall over, with the air pressure being a (minor) contributor.[/QUOTE]
If every other question has been answered, then this should be easily explained. If it is yet unexplained, then how is it a small matter?[/QUOTE]
The pulverization was due to concrete hitting concrete hitting concrete...
The air in each floor can't be ignored, all that air had to get out of the way as each floor collapsed. That's a lot of air moving in a short amount of time, so you'll get high pressures and high velocities. Stuff got ejected? Think "blowgun".
The progressive collapse is exactly what one should've expected in this situation. While static loads can be thought of as being distributed throughout the entire structure, a shock-load is concentrated at/near the point of impact. The loads were obviously greater than the maximum load that the structure was designed for, so the structure couldn't have distributed it. The result was that each floor, in turn, was crushed and pulverized and only that amount of load that the structure was capable of carrying was passed on to the floor below.
Stopping a 30-story block of building that's fallen, say, 10 feet, in say, 2 feet, would require the 30-story block to decelerate at 5gs. This would require the lower building to sustain a shock load of 6x (5g's to decelerate, plus 1g to support)the weight of the 30 story block, or the equivalent of 180 floors, more than the entire WTC weight. Since the floor being stuck couldn't come close to providing that sort of support, it snapped at its maximum strength, which was far below the force needed to slow the 30-story block significantly. Gravity then acted on the remains of that floor, accelerating it along with the 30-story block.
No mysteries, here, just the physics that you didn't bother learning well enough in high school.
The air in each floor can't be ignored, all that air had to get out of the way as each floor collapsed. That's a lot of air moving in a short amount of time, so you'll get high pressures and high velocities. Stuff got ejected? Think "blowgun".
The progressive collapse is exactly what one should've expected in this situation. While static loads can be thought of as being distributed throughout the entire structure, a shock-load is concentrated at/near the point of impact. The loads were obviously greater than the maximum load that the structure was designed for, so the structure couldn't have distributed it. The result was that each floor, in turn, was crushed and pulverized and only that amount of load that the structure was capable of carrying was passed on to the floor below.
Stopping a 30-story block of building that's fallen, say, 10 feet, in say, 2 feet, would require the 30-story block to decelerate at 5gs. This would require the lower building to sustain a shock load of 6x (5g's to decelerate, plus 1g to support)the weight of the 30 story block, or the equivalent of 180 floors, more than the entire WTC weight. Since the floor being stuck couldn't come close to providing that sort of support, it snapped at its maximum strength, which was far below the force needed to slow the 30-story block significantly. Gravity then acted on the remains of that floor, accelerating it along with the 30-story block.
No mysteries, here, just the physics that you didn't bother learning well enough in high school.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 26 2007, 06:12 PM)
Jesus doesn't do celebrity endorsements and he has not given you permission to use his name or his word to promote your lies.
You are wrong. He has given His permission to use not only His word but also His Name when it comes to a Christian relating to others in the hope that some will be saved. You call yourself a Christian yet you do not know about the power of God's word and what He has to say about it. Trying doing a word search in the Bible on "word of God" and see what you get.
For this forum, keep it to 911, quit posting your irrelivent scripture and stop using scripture to make snide comments about others or to try to support your lies. Used in this way they are poison for one and all.
Grumpy
We agree on keeping it to 9/11 on this thread, but I will not stop posting Scripture at the end of my posts, and they are not my "religious views" either. Who do you think you are, anyway? I personally refrain from discussing the eternal except when someone asks me a direct question, such as you are doing now.
As I wrote before, if you don't like the verses, that is your problem, not mine. I do not work for you -- I work for Him.
BEHOLD I STAND AT THE DOOR AND KNOCK
IF ANYONE HEARS MY VOICE AND OPENS THE DOOR
I WILL COME INTO HIM AND WILL DINE WITH HIM
AND HE WITH ME
You are wrong. He has given His permission to use not only His word but also His Name when it comes to a Christian relating to others in the hope that some will be saved. You call yourself a Christian yet you do not know about the power of God's word and what He has to say about it. Trying doing a word search in the Bible on "word of God" and see what you get.
QUOTE
For this forum, keep it to 911, quit posting your irrelivent scripture and stop using scripture to make snide comments about others or to try to support your lies. Used in this way they are poison for one and all.
Grumpy
We agree on keeping it to 9/11 on this thread, but I will not stop posting Scripture at the end of my posts, and they are not my "religious views" either. Who do you think you are, anyway? I personally refrain from discussing the eternal except when someone asks me a direct question, such as you are doing now.
As I wrote before, if you don't like the verses, that is your problem, not mine. I do not work for you -- I work for Him.
BEHOLD I STAND AT THE DOOR AND KNOCK
IF ANYONE HEARS MY VOICE AND OPENS THE DOOR
I WILL COME INTO HIM AND WILL DINE WITH HIM
AND HE WITH ME
QUOTE
I'm not quite sure I understand fully your point here, but the momentum gain of the upper block was due to gravity and as the acceleration of an object in a gravity field does not depend on its mass (m*a = m*g => a=g) a heavier object would gain more momentum (m*v) over time than a lighter one in the same field.
But heavier objects also have more inertia than lighter objects, reducing their increase in momentum even as velocity increases. The force of gravity is mass times the acceleration due to gravity, but force is also proportional to the distance between the center of the Earth and the center of the falling object. Although it is a minuscule effect compared to the gravity of the Earth, an object gaining mass will gain gravity too, pulling the Earth toward it slightly. A gain in mass means a slower gain in momentum. Acceleration is a vector, it doesn't matter what direction you're moving in, or what force is moving you, the more massive you are the slower you gain momentum and the slower you lose momentum.
QUOTE
But heavier objects also have more inertia than lighter objects, reducing their increase in momentum even as velocity increases.
Here, you're just illustrating my point about the high school physics.
It isn't wise to accuse people of committing mass murder based only on your lack of understanding physical phenomena.
I apply physics for a living, and I've looked at the "evidence", and there's nothing there whatsoever that isn't exactly as I'd expect it to be.
There are no mysteries here, only the physics that you don't understand.
QUOTE (wcelliott+May 27 2007, 03:52 AM)
Here, you're just illustrating my point about the high school physics.
It isn't wise to accuse people of committing mass murder based only on your lack of understanding physical phenomena.
I apply physics for a living, and I've looked at the "evidence", and there's nothing there whatsoever that isn't exactly as I'd expect it to be.
There are no mysteries here, only the physics that you don't understand.
really.
wow.
'cause, i've looked at the evidence, and i think your 'blowgun' is hilarious.
the perimeter trees, 3 thirty six ft. columns, and three spandrel plates connecting them, weighed 22 tons, and didn't have feathers or sails attached to them. maybe you should have picked unopened coke can as your example.
say, applied physics guy, when two bodies of equal mass collide, what happens?
what has more inertia? 80 storeys of tower, with a mass of 400, 000 tonnes, or the, say, 50,000 tonne 'cap'? which of these two pieces is rooted into bedrock seven storeys below the earth?
remember, too, the strength of the tower was pyramidal. the core columns were over fifty inches thick at the root, and FAR thinner at the top.
if connections are going to break from impacts, they will break nearly one for one, 'crush up/crush down', and the collapse front will act like a crumple zone in car accident, and the intact portion of the tower, which still has all it's connections parallel or perpindicular to gravity, as designed, unlike the tilting, freely moving 'caps', which have axial stresses placed on all their connections that they were not designed for.
and which way does heat go? up. so, the lightest, weakest, most compromised link, is the cap.
that means, collapse should be arrested, and much of the 'cap' should have slid off the side, continuing it's angular momentum vectors.
please, do not be so demeaning. this is a physics site. people come here to discuss physics. this, 'i am smarter than you' CRAP doesn't work here. there are others in the world who apply physics for a living, who find the collapses IMPOSSIBLE without an external energy source.
not to mention that you have already proven yourself to be a naked emperor, with your comparison of the SF bridge fire collapse.
p.s. WELCOME, Oneismany. your 'high school physics' are awesome.
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.