QUOTE (Palpatane+Jun 9 2007, 01:56 PM)
LOL
Mohammad should draw comics for the funny pages.
(fixed the link)
I like the reliance on Radio Controlled explosive.
You know in the same towers where the Fireman's Radios wouldn't work.
Which also means that when the explosives were installed (at many HUNDREDS of locations apparently) they had to have these big batteries next to them because they would have to be in listen mode until 9/11 rolled around.
Gets funnier by the minute.
Arthur
Mohammad should draw comics for the funny pages.
(fixed the link)
I like the reliance on Radio Controlled explosive.
You know in the same towers where the Fireman's Radios wouldn't work.
Which also means that when the explosives were installed (at many HUNDREDS of locations apparently) they had to have these big batteries next to them because they would have to be in listen mode until 9/11 rolled around.
Gets funnier by the minute.
Arthur
QUOTE (FactCheck+Jun 9 2007, 07:09 PM)
The pivot point (Core columns) simply goes straight down.
For WTC 1 this is absolutely correct. For WTC 2 the situation is more complex, but nothing went up, only sideways and down.
For WTC 1 this is absolutely correct. For WTC 2 the situation is more complex, but nothing went up, only sideways and down.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 9 2007, 11:04 AM)
Only among those who were true believers (like you) to start with.
On the other hand, for those who actually have WORKING neurons:
http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/
Arthur
Sorry Arthurs,
Nobody wakes up one morning and decides to believe the OCT.
The people waking up and trying to understand 9/11 are ALL questioning the OCT.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 12:51 PM)
Prove they were all welded and what the connections looked like. I have seen hundreds (possibly thousands) of 3 storey columns that have perfect ends from the mill.
NOPE
See NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Figure 4-2
Its a recovered core column that is SEVERELY BENT (was in the impact zone) but the WELDED connection is fine.
Oh, and if weak welds are part of YOUR theory, then first YOU have to PROVE they were weak.
Almost all the "perfect ends" I've seen are from the BOLTED perimeter columns.
Arthur
NOPE
See NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Figure 4-2
Its a recovered core column that is SEVERELY BENT (was in the impact zone) but the WELDED connection is fine.
Oh, and if weak welds are part of YOUR theory, then first YOU have to PROVE they were weak.
Almost all the "perfect ends" I've seen are from the BOLTED perimeter columns.
Arthur
QUOTE (FactCheck+Jun 9 2007, 06:28 PM)
Yes...
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
What about you?
The one in the background cut on an angle, was cut with oxy. There no doubt in my mind, the cut is clean, you can tell it was cut slow and steady. And the guy who cut it was most likely right handed, the cut goes down and counter clockwise, away from the body. Certainly not cut with something like thermite, at least not the way I can envision thermite cutting a column.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
What about you?
The one in the background cut on an angle, was cut with oxy. There no doubt in my mind, the cut is clean, you can tell it was cut slow and steady. And the guy who cut it was most likely right handed, the cut goes down and counter clockwise, away from the body. Certainly not cut with something like thermite, at least not the way I can envision thermite cutting a column.
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/vi...1/wtc4small.jpg
Folks, please look at this amazing photo taken during the construction of the Twin Towers.....
I think the diagonal bracing explains the infamous diagonal cut!
Folks, please look at this amazing photo taken during the construction of the Twin Towers.....
I think the diagonal bracing explains the infamous diagonal cut!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 9 2007, 07:52 PM)
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/vi...1/wtc4small.jpg
Folks, please look at this amazing photo taken during the construction of the Twin Towers.....
I think the diagonal bracing explains the infamous diagonal cut!
By George i think he got it!
Folks, please look at this amazing photo taken during the construction of the Twin Towers.....
I think the diagonal bracing explains the infamous diagonal cut!
By George i think he got it!
Hmmm, maybe so... but were there LOTS of diagonal braces? Instead of diagonal 'stubs' left from cutting off the braces, my opinion is still that it's the way to cut a column and control which way it swings on the crane rigging or which way it falls if it's not rigged.
QUOTE
Folks, please look at this amazing photo taken during the construction of the Twin Towers.....
Jeez, Jay, you don't have to get all FACTUAL about it!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 9 2007, 07:52 PM)
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/vi...1/wtc4small.jpg
Folks, please look at this amazing photo taken during the construction of the Twin Towers.....
That is a useful photo, since I had not previously understood the nature of the diagonal bracing on the mechanical floors.
However, I agree with Alan. The cuts were diagonal (mostly) for safety and control, IMHO.
Folks, please look at this amazing photo taken during the construction of the Twin Towers.....
That is a useful photo, since I had not previously understood the nature of the diagonal bracing on the mechanical floors.
However, I agree with Alan. The cuts were diagonal (mostly) for safety and control, IMHO.
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Jun 9 2007, 08:41 PM)
Hmmm, maybe so... but were there LOTS of diagonal braces? Instead of diagonal 'stubs' left from cutting off the braces, my opinion is still that it's the way to cut a column and control which way it swings on the crane rigging or which way it falls if it's not rigged.
In the picture on debunking911 there is a break in the metal which suggests it had been welded to something before someone cut it with a torch.
In the picture on debunking911 there is a break in the metal which suggests it had been welded to something before someone cut it with a torch.
ceelliot --- I just checked NCSTAR1-5F. I haven't read the several chapters devoted to discussions of the fire model evaluations, but I thought you might care to do so.
QUOTE (3bodyproblem+Jun 9 2007, 07:39 PM)
The one in the background cut on an angle, was cut with oxy. There no doubt in my mind, the cut is clean, you can tell it was cut slow and steady. And the guy who cut it was most likely right handed, the cut goes down and counter clockwise, away from the body. Certainly not cut with something like thermite, at least not the way I can envision thermite cutting a column.
Exactly, there is NO evidence of explosives or anything else purposely done to fell the towers. Not even "maybe".
Exactly, there is NO evidence of explosives or anything else purposely done to fell the towers. Not even "maybe".
QUOTE
fire model evaluations, but I thought you might care to do so.
Thanks, maybe later. You've already addressed my objections when you mentioned the log/linear "extreme events" thing.
That was all I was saying, that nominal values aren't the same as the extreme values, and the existence of extreme values can explain things that nominal values wouldn't (like the evidence that some small quantities of steel actually melted).
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 9 2007, 07:52 PM)
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/vi...1/wtc4small.jpg
Folks, please look at this amazing photo taken during the construction of the Twin Towers.....
I think the diagonal bracing explains the infamous diagonal cut!
IMHO, that's possible but I think it should be in the unlikely "column". (Get it! column!... Never mind...) We don't have evidence of where the column came from but we do have more than enough evidence of columns cut at an angle by iron workers. Even perimeter columns. Look at the video on the bottom of the page...
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
I'm not saying you aren't right, only that we lack the evidence in that direction.
Folks, please look at this amazing photo taken during the construction of the Twin Towers.....
I think the diagonal bracing explains the infamous diagonal cut!
IMHO, that's possible but I think it should be in the unlikely "column". (Get it! column!... Never mind...) We don't have evidence of where the column came from but we do have more than enough evidence of columns cut at an angle by iron workers. Even perimeter columns. Look at the video on the bottom of the page...
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
I'm not saying you aren't right, only that we lack the evidence in that direction.
QUOTE (FactCheck+Jun 9 2007, 09:14 PM)
Exactly, there is NO evidence of explosives or anything else purposely done to fell the towers. Not even "maybe".
There isn't even a need for explosives. Everything we know suggests the towers were going to fall once the planes hit. The idea that explosives were used during the collapse is even more ridiculous. Like peeing in the ocean, 0 effect.
There isn't even a need for explosives. Everything we know suggests the towers were going to fall once the planes hit. The idea that explosives were used during the collapse is even more ridiculous. Like peeing in the ocean, 0 effect.
QUOTE
There isn't even a need for explosives. Everything we know suggests the towers were going to fall once the planes hit. The idea that explosives were used during the collapse is even more ridiculous. Like peeing in the ocean, 0 effect.
That, plus the fact that there are lots of ordinary citizens in NYC who know what explosives smell like, including ex-military and construction workers, in addition to firemen and cops, and if they'd smelled explosives, it would've been the "smoking gun" that this was a CD. Nobody smelled explosives. Not even bomb-sniffing dogs, and I'd think even in the tin-foil-hat crowd, the idea of getting bomb-sniffing dogs to cooperate in the coverup is a bit of a stretch.
QUOTE (metamars+Jun 9 2007, 10:47 AM)
However, the bedrock is not perfctly[sic] elastic.....
Of course rock can be crushed. So can concrete. During the cleanup of Ground Zero, it was discovered that portions of the south wall of the Bathtub had be damaged. This portion of the wall was shored up so the excavation could continue.
However, nothing at all was stated about the condition of the (thick) concrete at the bottom of the Bathtub. This implies it was in fairly good shape, there being considerable hydrostatic pressure from below. The inference is the bedrock below the concrete was essentially unharmed, at least as regards its load-bearing capabilities.
Of course rock can be crushed. So can concrete. During the cleanup of Ground Zero, it was discovered that portions of the south wall of the Bathtub had be damaged. This portion of the wall was shored up so the excavation could continue.
However, nothing at all was stated about the condition of the (thick) concrete at the bottom of the Bathtub. This implies it was in fairly good shape, there being considerable hydrostatic pressure from below. The inference is the bedrock below the concrete was essentially unharmed, at least as regards its load-bearing capabilities.
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Jun 9 2007, 08:41 PM)
Hmmm, maybe so... but were there LOTS of diagonal braces? Instead of diagonal 'stubs' left from cutting off the braces, my opinion is still that it's the way to cut a column and control which way it swings on the crane rigging or which way it falls if it's not rigged.
Myself, I would have though the reason for the diagonal cuts was that an horizontal cut would allow the slag to puddle on top of the lower surface and resolidify behind the cutting flame. The diagonal cut allows the slag to drip away.
There could be other reasons as well.
Myself, I would have though the reason for the diagonal cuts was that an horizontal cut would allow the slag to puddle on top of the lower surface and resolidify behind the cutting flame. The diagonal cut allows the slag to drip away.
There could be other reasons as well.
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 9 2007, 10:12 PM)
Myself, I would have though the reason for the diagonal cuts was that an horizontal cut would allow the slag to puddle on top of the lower surface and resolidify behind the cutting flame. The diagonal cut allows the slag to drip away.
There could be other reasons as well.
If they don't cut at an angle, the top part wil melt back on the lower part. Thats why they "blow" the slag downwards. Which is what you said i see now.... Excuse me for the double confirmation....
Thats my take on it anyway
There could be other reasons as well.
If they don't cut at an angle, the top part wil melt back on the lower part. Thats why they "blow" the slag downwards. Which is what you said i see now.... Excuse me for the double confirmation....
Thats my take on it anyway
QUOTE (metamars+Jun 9 2007, 10:47 AM)
After all, none of you seems terribly interested in energy losses away from the crushing front, due to dynamic effects ala Caladine and English.
Well, we don't have any evidence of energy losses elsewhere (now that the trivial matter of seismic losses has been disposed of).
Elastic properties are unimportant. Inelastic ones are. But there is no evidence for, for example, huge S-waves deforming the lower part of the towers, even elastically. There is no evidence for any significant amount of internal pre-destruction preceding the crushing front.
But suppose there is something hidden. Its just another energy sink. So we can account for it 'at the crushing front' and we'll just fine until quite near the end of crush-down. There nothing matters as the crushing front is proceeding at about 50 m/s!
Well, we don't have any evidence of energy losses elsewhere (now that the trivial matter of seismic losses has been disposed of).
Elastic properties are unimportant. Inelastic ones are. But there is no evidence for, for example, huge S-waves deforming the lower part of the towers, even elastically. There is no evidence for any significant amount of internal pre-destruction preceding the crushing front.
But suppose there is something hidden. Its just another energy sink. So we can account for it 'at the crushing front' and we'll just fine until quite near the end of crush-down. There nothing matters as the crushing front is proceeding at about 50 m/s!
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 02:36 PM)
Sorry Arthurs,
Nobody wakes up one morning and decides to believe the OCT.
The people waking up and trying to understand 9/11 are ALL questioning the OCT.
Yes, I know, I (and many others) have been responding to these people for 2 years now and guess what, in that time not a SINGLE thing has been brought up to suggest that it HAD to be a CD.
NOT ONE.
No evidence of NEED for explosives.
and
No evidence of EXISTENCE of explosives.
Unfortunately the people who are "trying to understand 9/11" would rather believe obvious Con-Men like Jones, Jones, Fetzer, Hoffman, Avery etc.
Its pretty damn obvious what the issue is.
You can download the NIST report for free.
But the people who are IN IT FOR THE MONEY want you to go to their sites and sell you a book or a DVD or a Tshirt.
At this point their disinformation campaign has become a cottage industry built on the blood of the victims.
Sick is what it is.
And I know why they come here and rant and get all upset with us.
Simple,
We're bad for their business.
You can tell when we hit a nerver, some Joe SMoe, will show up with his rants and dump copy/pasted BS from all those Troofer sites on this forum. Get all upset. Usually challenge us to a fight.
But its no wonder he's mad, we've probably cost him plenty in lost T-shirt sales.
Arthur
Nobody wakes up one morning and decides to believe the OCT.
The people waking up and trying to understand 9/11 are ALL questioning the OCT.
Yes, I know, I (and many others) have been responding to these people for 2 years now and guess what, in that time not a SINGLE thing has been brought up to suggest that it HAD to be a CD.
NOT ONE.
No evidence of NEED for explosives.
and
No evidence of EXISTENCE of explosives.
Unfortunately the people who are "trying to understand 9/11" would rather believe obvious Con-Men like Jones, Jones, Fetzer, Hoffman, Avery etc.
Its pretty damn obvious what the issue is.
You can download the NIST report for free.
But the people who are IN IT FOR THE MONEY want you to go to their sites and sell you a book or a DVD or a Tshirt.
At this point their disinformation campaign has become a cottage industry built on the blood of the victims.
Sick is what it is.
And I know why they come here and rant and get all upset with us.
Simple,
We're bad for their business.
You can tell when we hit a nerver, some Joe SMoe, will show up with his rants and dump copy/pasted BS from all those Troofer sites on this forum. Get all upset. Usually challenge us to a fight.
But its no wonder he's mad, we've probably cost him plenty in lost T-shirt sales.
Arthur
QUOTE (Jay38+Jun 9 2007, 10:15 PM)
If they don't cut at an angle, the top part wil melt back on the lower part. Thats why they "blow" the slag downwards. Which is what you said i see now.... Excuse me for the double confirmation....
Thats my take on it anyway
That's pretty much what I have been attempting to express. Thanks.
Thats my take on it anyway
That's pretty much what I have been attempting to express. Thanks.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 9 2007, 01:44 PM)
That, plus the fact that there are lots of ordinary citizens in NYC who know what explosives smell like, including ex-military and construction workers, in addition to firemen and cops, and if they'd smelled explosives, it would've been the "smoking gun" that this was a CD. Nobody smelled explosives. Not even bomb-sniffing dogs, and I'd think even in the tin-foil-hat crowd, the idea of getting bomb-sniffing dogs to cooperate in the coverup is a bit of a stretch.
What exactly does Thermate or Thermobaric warheads smell like?
Can you show any proof that dogs are trained to identify these?
QUOTE
THERMOBARIC FOES: EXPLOSIVE THREAT
Thermobaric warheads put the power to demolish buildings into the hands of the average U.S. marine. But Americans aren’t the only ones with the weapons. The Chinese, the Russians -- even guerilla groups -- now have thermobarics' shockingly destructive power in their grasps.
Thermobaric warheads put the power to demolish buildings into the hands of the average U.S. marine. But Americans aren’t the only ones with the weapons. The Chinese, the Russians -- even guerilla groups -- now have thermobarics' shockingly destructive power in their grasps.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001969.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| THERMOBARIC FOES: EXPLOSIVE THREAT Thermobaric warheads put the power to demolish buildings into the hands of the average U.S. marine. But Americans aren’t the only ones with the weapons. The Chinese, the Russians -- even guerilla groups -- now have thermobarics' shockingly destructive power in their grasps. |
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001969.html
MARINES QUIET ABOUT BRUTAL NEW WEAPON
War is hell. But it’s worse when the Marines bring out their new urban combat weapon, the SMAW-NE. Which may be why they’re not talking about it, much.
This is a version of the standard USMC Shoulder Mounted Assault Weapon but with a new warhead. Described as NE - "Novel Explosive"- it is a thermobaric mixture which ignites the air, producing a shockwave of unparalleled destructive power, especially against buildings.
A post-action report from Iraq describes the effect of the new weapon: "One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed." Elsewhere it is described by one Marine as "an awesome piece of ordnance."
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html
Nobody is claiming that conventional explosives were used.
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 9 2007, 10:12 PM)
Myself, I would have though the reason for the diagonal cuts was that an horizontal cut would allow the slag to puddle on top of the lower surface and resolidify behind the cutting flame. The diagonal cut allows the slag to drip away.
There could be other reasons as well.
The oxygen is at 10-15 psig, when you're cutting you have to blow the oxidized metal out of the way. Slag never really builds up. The only real rule is to cut away from you
There could be other reasons as well.
The oxygen is at 10-15 psig, when you're cutting you have to blow the oxidized metal out of the way. Slag never really builds up. The only real rule is to cut away from you
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 10:24 PM)
What exactly does Thermate or Thermobaric warheads smell like?
I'll tell you if you tell me what invisible Godzilla smells like
I'll tell you if you tell me what invisible Godzilla smells like
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Jun 9 2007, 08:41 PM)
Hmmm, maybe so... but were there LOTS of diagonal braces? Instead of diagonal 'stubs' left from cutting off the braces, my opinion is still that it's the way to cut a column and control which way it swings on the crane rigging or which way it falls if it's not rigged.
I thought about this, and I'm gonna tell from working with stuff hooked up to cranes, you never want to have things swinging if you can help it. If you had something like a column hooked up to the crane and you were cutting it you would want it to stay right were it is once it's severed.
I thought about this, and I'm gonna tell from working with stuff hooked up to cranes, you never want to have things swinging if you can help it. If you had something like a column hooked up to the crane and you were cutting it you would want it to stay right were it is once it's severed.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 9 2007, 11:37 AM)
NOPE
See NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Figure 4-2
Its a recovered core column that is SEVERELY BENT (was in the impact zone) but the WELDED connection is fine.
Oh, and if weak welds are part of YOUR theory, then first YOU have to PROVE they were weak.
Almost all the "perfect ends" I've seen are from the BOLTED perimeter columns.
Arthur
Try these:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5378.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4144.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5407.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4145.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3970.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4077.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5431.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5371.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5381.jpg
They all support Gordons website.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Figure 4-2
Its a recovered core column that is SEVERELY BENT (was in the impact zone) but the WELDED connection is fine.
Oh, and if weak welds are part of YOUR theory, then first YOU have to PROVE they were weak.
Almost all the "perfect ends" I've seen are from the BOLTED perimeter columns.
Arthur
Try these:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5378.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4144.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5407.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4145.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3970.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4077.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5431.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5371.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5381.jpg
They all support Gordons website.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 9 2007, 02:22 PM)
Yes, I know, I (and many others) have been responding to these people for 2 years now and guess what, in that time not a SINGLE thing has been brought up to suggest that it HAD to be a CD.
NOT ONE.
No evidence of NEED for explosives.
and
No evidence of EXISTENCE of explosives.
Unfortunately the people who are "trying to understand 9/11" would rather believe obvious Con-Men like Jones, Jones, Fetzer, Hoffman, Avery etc.
Its pretty damn obvious what the issue is.
You can download the NIST report for free.
But the people who are IN IT FOR THE MONEY want you to go to their sites and sell you a book or a DVD or a Tshirt.
At this point their disinformation campaign has become a cottage industry built on the blood of the victims.
Sick is what it is.
And I know why they come here and rant and get all upset with us.
Simple,
We're bad for their business.
You can tell when we hit a nerver, some Joe SMoe, will show up with his rants and dump copy/pasted BS from all those Troofer sites on this forum. Get all upset. Usually challenge us to a fight.
But its no wonder he's mad, we've probably cost him plenty in lost T-shirt sales.
Arthur
Wrong again!
NIST made $20,000,000 for a useless report!
Someone from the DBB, Nue-fonze paper made money from the Goverment for a paper anyone can see dosn't match reality.
If the evidence had not been destroyed and their was a real forensic investigation or even one that could simulate the mythical “gravity driven collapse” and trusses “ pulling-in the walls”, people might not be waking up.
You are so full of BS , look who started the last round of threats:
For the record, Malmo, you make me sick, too.
And you better pray we never meet face-to-face.
Tell that to every other CDiot.
Thermobarics will knock stuff over and kill people, but they won't cut steel.
Neither will they pulverize concrete. They're low-explosives, like ANFO, except ANFO you can load into predrilled holes. You can't do that with a fuel-air mixture.
And the link recently posted of Mohammed's drawing showed a radio-controlled bomb set at the base of a perimeter column. That wasn't a thermobaric bomb, was it? If so, it wouldn't have had any effect on the column.
Was it thermite? If so, it would've simply drained straight down, producing no blast at all, because thermite doesn't go BANG!.
So thermite won't explain the "BANGs" heard, and thermobarics won't cut steel, and you're saying that "nobody is claiming that conventional explosives were used".
I think that *All* the other CDiots are claiming that some explosives are being used, but none of them are willing to state which, because there are logical arguments against any of them.
You'd rather just insinuate that some explosive placed someplace caused something... When you get definite about things, it gets easy to debunk the CD theory, so you stay vague deliberately.
Try these:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5378.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4144.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5407.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4145.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3970.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4077.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5431.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5371.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5381.jpg
They all support Gordons website.
They do??
Could you please explain in each photograph what you mean please. So what was used to get some results on the columns and how much of it was used. Rember you are blaming NIST for not researching enough, so show us how Gordon came to these conclusions. Lets see what kind of research he did to come to the conclusions he has made.
Gee, when you say "start", I'd have thought you'd have gone back to who said what first. That's usually what "start" means.
If you notice in your quote, I said he made me sick, TOO. If you'd scrolled back one post, you'd have seen that he spewed a long rant of personal bile directly against me (certainly not addressing any of the points I made), including the phrase "YOU MAKE ME SICK!".
If you want to get picky about it, what I said wasn't specifically a threat. His response, "I'll punch your face in, Bit*h!", was.
As for the *Profit Motive* behind the CDiots, I wish it were that easy. These CDiots aren't after the Truth, and the money they collect isn't all they're after, either, they're trolling for "True Believers", people willing to accept all their NWO bullsh*t, and get mad enough to go kill cops and feds and bomb buildings, themselves. Note how MalmoStooge was so fond of that guy who refuses to pay his income taxes. This is an appeal to the ignorant Americans who resent their taxes going to support social programs. This is one of the key beefs that White Supremists harp on all the time. Him tossing that into a discussion of 9/11 was just casting a broad net, hoping to find a White Supremist he could recruit to become a terrorist.
It's an orchestrated effort, and the motives aren't monetary, they're political. They want to recruit terrorists, and they figure the longer they play this game, the more idiots they can recruit.
We haven't heard from MalmoStooge in a while, maybe he's already strapped a bomb to his chest and headed out the door.
Try these:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5381.jpg
They all support Gordons website.
Lets start with this picture. Show us how Gordon is right in this picture. Please elaborate.
Tell that to every other CDiot.
Thermobarics will knock stuff over and kill people, but they won't cut steel.
Neither will they pulverize concrete. They're low-explosives, like ANFO, except ANFO you can load into predrilled holes. You can't do that with a fuel-air mixture.
And the link recently posted of Mohammed's drawing showed a radio-controlled bomb set at the base of a perimeter column. That wasn't a thermobaric bomb, was it? If so, it wouldn't have had any effect on the column.
Was it thermite? If so, it would've simply drained straight down, producing no blast at all, because thermite doesn't go BANG!.
So thermite won't explain the "BANGs" heard, and thermobarics won't cut steel, and you're saying that "nobody is claiming that conventional explosives were used".
I think that *All* the other CDiots are claiming that some explosives are being used, but none of them are willing to state which, because there are logical arguments against any of them.
You'd rather just insinuate that some explosive placed someplace caused something... When you get definite about things, it gets easy to debunk the CD theory, so you stay vague deliberately.
Are you serious, an OTC believer that didn’t fall for the OKC ANFO bomb ?
http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...ing/murrah2.jpg
Anyone can see the concrete was pulverized.
A patent for a thermite holder:
By design, as I said. They don't care whether they can get someone to strap explosives to their chest because they believe in thermobaric bombs (which use conventional explosives, BTW, so the bomb-sniffing dogs would "alert" on those) or C4 or thermite or thermate or, for that matter, Invisible Godzilla, just so whatever BS theory they'll buy will convince them to kill themselves and others, that's all they're looking for.
If they can sell T-shirts in the process, all the better, then they'll have the money they need to buy the explosives for the vests.
And thermite STILL doesn't go BANG!.
By design, as I said. They don't care whether they can get someone to strap explosives to their chest because they believe in thermobaric bombs (which use conventional explosives, BTW, so the bomb-sniffing dogs would "alert" on those) or C4 or thermite or thermate or, for that matter, Invisible Godzilla, just so whatever BS theory they'll buy will convince them to kill themselves and others, that's all they're looking for.
If they can sell T-shirts in the process, all the better, then they'll have the money they need to buy the explosives for the vests.
And thermite STILL doesn't go BANG!.
Anyone can see the concrete was pulverized.
The OKC bomb collapsed the floors, which then broke apart as they collapsed, as the WTC floors did, by the process I've already described more than once. The blast itself didn't pulverize the concrete, nor could a thermobaric bomb by its blast. A thermobaric bomb overloads the structure causing it to fail. To pulverize concrete directly you need high-explosives, which, regardless of whatever a non-technical person says, thermobaric bombs *aren't*.
By design, as I said. They don't care whether they can get someone to strap explosives to their chest because they believe in thermobaric bombs (which use conventional explosives, BTW, so the bomb-sniffing dogs would "alert" on those) or C4 or thermite or thermate or, for that matter, Invisible Godzilla, just so whatever BS theory they'll buy will convince them to kill themselves and others, that's all they're looking for.
If they can sell T-shirts in the process, all the better, then they'll have the money they need to buy the explosives for the vests.
And thermite STILL doesn't go BANG!.
The OKC bomb collapsed the floors, which then broke apart as they collapsed, as the WTC floors did, by the process I've already described more than once. The blast itself didn't pulverize the concrete, nor could a thermobaric bomb by its blast. A thermobaric bomb overloads the structure causing it to fail. To pulverize concrete directly you need high-explosives, which, regardless of whatever a non-technical person says, thermobaric bombs *aren't*.
Just do a quick Internet search for Thermite BOMB:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0MBr_i_ut4
These idiots obviously did not have a technical person to tell them that thermite does not go BANG!
How do you tell the difference between direct and indirect pulverization (if you believe dropping a floor 3 storeys would pulverize concrete)?
It wasn't the thermite that made the loud noise, it was the iron pipe that contained the heat and pressure until it failed.
Can you explain to me why non-idiots planning a covert CD would make thermite go "BANG!" when it isn't necessary? Were they *deliberately* creating evidence of a CD? Thermite, on its own, makes a hissing sound as it burns (and burning is all thermite does, it's the aluminum stealing the oxygen from the rust that powers the thermal reaction).
So if you can burn through a horizontal patch of steel, quietly, or you can add an unnecessary airtight container to it and make it go "BANG!", and you're trying to be stealthy to keep your actions a secret, why do you make it in a way that makes a loud "BANG!"?
Thermobaric bombs use high-explosives to drive the fuel into an aerosol and later to detonate it (with an additive to send ignition sparks throughout the aerosol cloud). Why not a low explosive? Because a low explosive burns slow enough that the fireball would ignite the fuel before it became an aerosol.
High-explosives are used to put out oil well fires, employing the same phenomenon.
The FBI doesn't own all the bomb-sniffing dogs in NYC. So I suppose the rest of them were recruited by the NWO to keep their mouths shut...
It wasn't the thermite that made the loud noise, it was the iron pipe that contained the heat and pressure until it failed.
Can you explain to me why non-idiots planning a covert CD would make thermite go "BANG!" when it isn't necessary? Were they *deliberately* creating evidence of a CD? Thermite, on its own, makes a hissing sound as it burns (and burning is all thermite does, it's the aluminum stealing the oxygen from the rust that powers the thermal reaction).
So if you can burn through a horizontal patch of steel, quietly, or you can add an unnecessary airtight container to it and make it go "BANG!", and you're trying to be stealthy to keep your actions a secret, why do you make it in a way that makes a loud "BANG!"?
Thermobaric bombs use high-explosives to drive the fuel into an aerosol and later to detonate it (with an additive to send ignition sparks throughout the aerosol cloud). Why not a low explosive? Because a low explosive burns slow enough that the fireball would ignite the fuel before it became an aerosol.
High-explosives are used to put out oil well fires, employing the same phenomenon.
The FBI doesn't own all the bomb-sniffing dogs in NYC. So I suppose the rest of them were recruited by the NWO to keep their mouths shut...
How do you tell the difference between direct and indirect pulverization (if you believe dropping a floor 3 storeys would pulverize concrete)?
You're the one who's claiming that the ANFO pulverized the concrete. I've already described the means by which a low-explosive bomb like ANFO can drop a building, and I've already explained how falling chunks of concrete break into smaller chunks plus concrete dust. It's up to you to show how a low-explosive can exert enough stress in concrete to pulverize it if you're asserting that the WTC was collapsed without high explosives and that the concrete dust resulted from explosives, not from the "ball mill" process I've described more than once.
So, please tell me how a low-explosive can pulverize concrete? Enlighten me.
Gee, thanks for that link, I just followed it. (I already knew how thermobarics work.)
From your *own* link:
they produce blast which has a lower overpressure but a longer duration than normal condensed explosives. In effect it is a shove rather than a punch: a thermobaric explosion does not smash a hole in a wall, it pushes the wall over. An instantaneous explosive overpressure of 50 psi [pounds per square inch] is needed to kill. But one sustained for a fraction of a second at 10 psi is also lethal. That’s how thermobarics kill."
Now, maybe you can explain to me how you can cite an article that corroborates everything I said, while asserting that I'm wrong?
Seems like "truth" really doesn't rank high on your list of priorities.
Gee, thanks for that link, I just followed it. (I already knew how thermobarics work.)
From your *own* link:
they produce blast which has a lower overpressure but a longer duration than normal condensed explosives. In effect it is a shove rather than a punch: a thermobaric explosion does not smash a hole in a wall, it pushes the wall over. An instantaneous explosive overpressure of 50 psi [pounds per square inch] is needed to kill. But one sustained for a fraction of a second at 10 psi is also lethal. That’s how thermobarics kill."
Now, maybe you can explain to me how you can cite an article that corroborates everything I said, while asserting that I'm wrong?
Seems like "truth" really doesn't rank high on your list of priorities.
I love when they debunk themselves.
Gee, thanks for that link, I just followed it. (I already knew how thermobarics work.)
From your *own* link:
they produce blast which has a lower overpressure but a longer duration than normal condensed explosives. In effect it is a shove rather than a punch: a thermobaric explosion does not smash a hole in a wall, it pushes the wall over. An instantaneous explosive overpressure of 50 psi [pounds per square inch] is needed to kill. But one sustained for a fraction of a second at 10 psi is also lethal. That’s how thermobarics kill."
Now, maybe you can explain to me how you can cite an article that corroborates everything I said, while asserting that I'm wrong?
Seems like "truth" really doesn't rank high on your list of priorities.
It depends on position in the confined space if it is HIGH or LOW pressure:
http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/infocent...degger_fm-5.jpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/infocent...degger_fm-7.gif
Figure C depicts the same explosive charge detonated in the center of a room. The shockwaves are reflected by the walls, producing zones of amplified pressure, in particular at the corners. Figure D depicts the pressure–time graph for this case. Unlike the uniform decline of pressure over time shown in Figure B, the pressure oscillates over time. The effect is non-linear; shock reflection in corners can multiply the peak pressure several times.
For someone who thinks he understands thermobaric explosions you sure are IGNORANT ( I have even provided links).
The military has computer software that can simulate and calculate the pressure in a confined area.
NIST made $20,000,000 for a useless report!
Poor baby, you got your panties in a twist?
Is it because the big bad NIST is upsetting you again?
Problem is only people of very limited skill in the art of structural engineering, you know, like YOU, think so.
Arthur
The mere fact that you can concentrate the shock waves from a low explosive doesn't make it a high explosive.
Too bad none of the provided plots show what the pressures actually are, otherwise we could compare them to the strength of concrete and see if any of those pressure spikes would be capable of pulverizing concrete (rather than just "shoving" it, as your own article pointed out was all it's capable of doing).
So, now are you insinuating that the government used a *shaped thermobaric charge* to collapse the WTC?
Why would they?
As far as that goes, why would they make thermite charges go BANG! when they don't have to? You never answered that question.
Incidentally, I've written more complicated simulations myself under military contracts. Pretty pictures, but I'm not that impressed.
Lower right hand corner.
NEXT!
This is fun.
You think that looks like damage from a HIGH EXPLOSIVE?????
ROTFLMAO
That's friggin hilarious.
You're absolutely right, this is FUN!
Oh, please, do more.
Arthur
I second that.
Clearly, it's where Invisible Godzilla took a bite out of it.
The mere fact that you can concentrate the shock waves from a low explosive doesn't make it a high explosive.
Too bad none of the provided plots show what the pressures actually are, otherwise we could compare them to the strength of concrete and see if any of those pressure spikes would be capable of pulverizing concrete (rather than just "shoving" it, as your own article pointed out was all it's capable of doing).
So, now are you insinuating that the government used a *shaped thermobaric charge* to collapse the WTC?
Why would they?
As far as that goes, why would they make thermite charges go BANG! when they don't have to? You never answered that question.
Incidentally, I've written more complicated simulations myself under military contracts. Pretty pictures, but I'm not that impressed.
Has it occurred to you that if it looked and smelled just like a controlled demolition the people responsible would need hundreds more shills (very expensive and shills sometimes get unstable and are retired) on the Internet or even might have to pay for the crimes(OBL is not even being pursued) ?
What if high level officials had not gone along with the destruction of evidence and reported the real air quality problems stopping the clean-up?
Two videos of thermobarics "shoving" the walls:
http://warfare.ru/video/2007/rpo.wmv
Look at the brick house at 33 seconds.
http://warfare.ru/?catid=278&linkid=1847&video=true&id=109
That's why I asked you why someone who knows something about explosives would go out of their way to make thermite go BANG!.
Also, why all the random "explosions" all throughout the buildings, if they could just use nice, quiet thermite to drop the towers?
Are you suggesting that the conspirators planted explosives throughout the structure or not?
And, once again, thermobaric bombs DO use high explosives to make the fuel into an aerosol prior to detonation. Bomb-sniffing dogs would've smelled it (unless you're saying that the dogs were in on the plot, too).
I'd love to hear your views on these questions.
(That's why I keep asking them.)
That's why I asked you why someone who knows something about explosives would go out of their way to make thermite go BANG!.
Also, why all the random "explosions" all throughout the buildings, if they could just use nice, quiet thermite to drop the towers?
Are you suggesting that the conspirators planted explosives throughout the structure or not?
And, once again, thermobaric bombs DO use high explosives to make the fuel into an aerosol prior to detonation. Bomb-sniffing dogs would've smelled it (unless you're saying that the dogs were in on the plot, too).
I'd love to hear your views on these questions.
(That's why I keep asking them.)
I don't think thermite could do the job alone (might leave some of the tower standing and slow down the clean-up).
I have never listened to a CD without the windows removed (have no idea how load it would be).
Low pressure explosive used to push the columns at the splices (not as distinct a sound as high explosives) along with thermate (to weaken the connections) might be enough.
I am sure someone would be able to figure out an explosive the dogs could not recognize after detonation .The chemical residue would be more of a problem and that is why the steel was quickly recycled.
Precisely what they show.
None of the buildings were concrete, and even the mud-brick how basically just fell down. The rubble was just bricks that weren't stacked on top of each other anymore. The house got shoved apart, much like your own article said. No pulverized concrete. Let me know if you find something that shows concrete being pulverized by a thermobaric bomb.
I've seen videos of them shot in super-slow motion photography, and yes, they're effective against personnel, and yes, they'll push on a structure and make it fail. No, it isn't the same as a high explosive. The shockwave onset isn't fast enough to concentrate the forces generated faster than the concrete can distribute the forces throughout its mass. The analogy between a punch versus a shove is a good one. Push someone hard enough, he may fall over and hit his head on the ground. It isn't the same as dropping him with a knock-out punch. The punch delivers more power to a local area, which is how bones get broken. The energy in the punch is delivered too fast for it to be transmitted throughout the body, so the effect is local and devastating, unlike a shove.
Maybe you should look for a video that shows what C4 does and compare the two. It isn't a nitpick, there really is a difference.
Since this topic has come up a couple of times, let me address it.
The reason they didn't declare the whole WTC site as a *crime scene* was that there are protocols and policies that apply to how evidence is collected, tagged, and stored. Those protocols would've required the cleanup to take place by forensics teams, not firemen. Each of the concrete chunks would've required bagging and storage in the Police Evidence Lockup, like it was a crack rock or a gun used in a robbery.
Even if you feel that they could've "bent the rules" and still treated everything *sensible* as evidence, allowing the forensics teams extraordinary discretion to "cherry-pick" through the evidence and decide on-the-fly which stuff looked interesting and which stuff didn't, there are only a handful of forensics people in NYC, and thousands of firemen. And there were human remains in the rubble, starting to rot. Guiliani had good reason to do what he did, which was to expedite the cleanup.
Maybe you recall that when it happened, everyone said it'd take at least two years to clean up the mess. He got it done a lot quicker, and that was good for NYC, in general, because the site, as it was, was wrecking the local economy. (Would you want to eat pizza downwind of rotting human remains?)
The amount of steel was enormous, more than could reasonably be stored anywhere. Treating it like the NTSB would've, as some have suggested, would've required reconstruction of the WTC at least to the level where all the pieces would be reassembled to show the point of impact and the first-collapsed floors. Except those steel members weren't numbered so you couldn't exactly know which ones to keep and which ones you could scrap. You can't tell one from the other, so how do you go about reconstructing anything?
And you're supposed to store that steel someplace like it's evidence? That means secure from theft or tampering. Which would mean armed guards watching it around the clock, and not just one, because you'd have to either build someplace big enough to store all the steel from all three WTC towers, or hire guards to surround the heap 24/7.
And why?
You'd still assume they'd tampered with the evidence if it didn't support your CD theory.
So why bother?
They did keep some of the steel from the towers for analysis, as indicated in the NIST reports, sufficient to do engineering analyses. It was a representative sample, and it was big enough for supporting the science of the study.
The cause of the WTC attacks was someone else's responsibility, not NIST's. NIST never said "Osama bin Laden plotted the attacks".
Osama bin Laden said that himself. (Why don't you take his word for it?)
Since this topic has come up a couple of times, let me address it.
The reason they didn't declare the whole WTC site as a *crime scene* was that there are protocols and policies that apply to how evidence is collected, tagged, and stored. Those protocols would've required the cleanup to take place by forensics teams, not firemen. Each of the concrete chunks would've required bagging and storage in the Police Evidence Lockup, like it was a crack rock or a gun used in a robbery.
Even if you feel that they could've "bent the rules" and still treated everything *sensible* as evidence, allowing the forensics teams extraordinary discretion to "cherry-pick" through the evidence and decide on-the-fly which stuff looked interesting and which stuff didn't, there are only a handful of forensics people in NYC, and thousands of firemen. And there were human remains in the rubble, starting to rot. Guiliani had good reason to do what he did, which was to expedite the cleanup.
Maybe you recall that when it happened, everyone said it'd take at least two years to clean up the mess. He got it done a lot quicker, and that was good for NYC, in general, because the site, as it was, was wrecking the local economy. (Would you want to eat pizza downwind of rotting human remains?)
The amount of steel was enormous, more than could reasonably be stored anywhere. Treating it like the NTSB would've, as some have suggested, would've required reconstruction of the WTC at least to the level where all the pieces would be reassembled to show the point of impact and the first-collapsed floors. Except those steel members weren't numbered so you couldn't exactly know which ones to keep and which ones you could scrap. You can't tell one from the other, so how do you go about reconstructing anything?
And you're supposed to store that steel someplace like it's evidence? That means secure from theft or tampering. Which would mean armed guards watching it around the clock, and not just one, because you'd have to either build someplace big enough to store all the steel from all three WTC towers, or hire guards to surround the heap 24/7.
And why?
You'd still assume they'd tampered with the evidence if it didn't support your CD theory.
So why bother?
They did keep some of the steel from the towers for analysis, as indicated in the NIST reports, sufficient to do engineering analyses. It was a representative sample, and it was big enough for supporting the science of the study.
The cause of the WTC attacks was someone else's responsibility, not NIST's. NIST never said "Osama bin Laden plotted the attacks".
Osama bin Laden said that himself. (Why don't you take his word for it?)
This is a photo of the clean-up of WTC7. The picture was taken on Sept 27, 2001. All the steel is already removed from WTC 7. This is unbelievable, even if you planed ahead of time, it still is amazing. In the real world, they would be deciding the best way to investigate the only steel building to totally collapse from fire.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4247.jpg
There was absolutely no reason to remove the steel from WTC7 (would not hold up the search and rescue of the other buildings). NIST still does not understand the collapse.
WTC7 STEEL IS ALL REMOVED 16 DAYS AFTER THE ATTACK!
You left out the *airplane impact* part of that. The impacts damaged the structures, so it wasn't just the fire that did the deed. Damaged structure from airplane impact plus weakened remaining structure due to the heat from the intense fire = collapsed WTC tower.
And steel buildings collapse from fire all the time. It isn't even considered newsworthy. It's a routine occurrance.
Just another Big Lie being spread by "troothers".
I looked at the video four times after reading your post, and I still can't see anything that looks suspicious. It's a burning building, still on-fire, and when it starts to collapse, the flames that were inside got shoved out with the air in the collapsing floor.
Those "flashes" are just flames getting blown through the standing smoke.
Also, they start *after* the building starts to fall. Was the building structure psychic and started falling before the "explosives" went off, or was the speed of light really slow that day?
You guys need to see some real explosions before you go off saying anything in that video looks like an explosion.
You do understand that when the ceiling drops to the floor, that the air that used to be between the floor and ceiling has to get out of the way, right?
Do some simple math, calculate how fast that 20tons of air per floor has to move to get out of the way of the falling ceiling. Here's a hint: It starts out going slow, but has to speed up as the ceiling gets closer to the floor. When the air escapes, it takes smoke, dust, and flames with it.
Look again at those thermobaric bomb videos. You can see the shockwaves. If a thermobaric bomb went off, don't you think you'd see the shockwave going through that cloud of smoke and dust? The field of view of the camera on the WTC included the full width of the WTC tower, and video is 30frames per second, so you'd see the shockwave propagating out through the smoke/dust. What you're calling a "blast" is actually just the air getting out of the way of the falling building.
Exactly what you'd expect, if you understood simple physics.
There's no mystery here, only the physics that you don't get.
They were used to lure Invisible Godzilla.
They were used to lure Invisible Godzilla.
Your theory really is taking shape. When are you going to publish?
First, I need to find someone who died and tie their death to Invisible Godzilla.
I was thinking of finding someone who'd died mysteriously, who was somehow linked to Area 51 (the invisible part) or having something to do with reptiles or biochemistry (the Godzilla part), but then I realized that since this is a conspiracy theory, death from natural causes just makes it all the more convincing that he was murdered, and then I realized that he could have no associations with anything Invisible Godzilla-like, and that would make it even better, showing how diligently the MiB were to cover-up any and all documentary evidence of his connections to Invisible Godzilla.
Now that I think of it, I don't even need a real person, I can just make up a name and claim that he was "disappeared" and his identity erased as part of the coverup.
Now, all I need is a cover-shot photograph that proves Invisible Godzilla can't be seen, and I'm ready to go to print.
You left out the *airplane impact* part of that. The impacts damaged the structures, so it wasn't just the fire that did the deed. Damaged structure from airplane impact plus weakened remaining structure due to the heat from the intense fire = collapsed WTC tower.
And steel buildings collapse from fire all the time. It isn't even considered newsworthy. It's a routine occurrance.
Just another Big Lie being spread by "troothers".
Please name a few of the steel building that have collapsed from fire?
Here's one from a google search on "fire steel truss collapse".
Here's one from a google search on "fire steel truss collapse".
Partial Roof Collapse in Commercial Structure Fire Claims the
Lives of Two Career Fire Fighters - Tennessee
(A summary of a NIOSH fire fighter fatality investigation)
...
"For example, truss systems can fail quickly after being
exposed to fire. Steel has no fire resistance and will
fail when heated to temperatures that are routinely
attained by fire. An unprotected steel-bar joist can
collapse after five to ten minutes of exposure to fire.
The temperature at which steel fails is 1,100 degrees
Fahrenheit. Temperatures of 1,000 degrees
Fahrenheit can be reached within the first five minutes
of a fire, and 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit can be
attained within 10 minutes."
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200318.pdf
Here's three more from FireRescue Magazine
June 2005:
These didn't hit your front page?
Maybe that's because it happens so often that it isn't considered "news".
Steel truss structures fail all the time. Ask any fireman.
And how, exactly, did "THEY" get the bomb-sniffing dogs to go along with the conspiracy?
Watch this, and see how slowly the collapse happened.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...528290546&hl=en
You can't do that with explosives.
The building was collapsing from the time of impact until the last chunk of debris hit the street, it just started out slow and accelerated.
So when do you start the stopwatch?
NOT ONE.
No evidence of NEED for explosives.
and
No evidence of EXISTENCE of explosives.
Unfortunately the people who are "trying to understand 9/11" would rather believe obvious Con-Men like Jones, Jones, Fetzer, Hoffman, Avery etc.
Its pretty damn obvious what the issue is.
You can download the NIST report for free.
But the people who are IN IT FOR THE MONEY want you to go to their sites and sell you a book or a DVD or a Tshirt.
At this point their disinformation campaign has become a cottage industry built on the blood of the victims.
Sick is what it is.
And I know why they come here and rant and get all upset with us.
Simple,
We're bad for their business.
You can tell when we hit a nerver, some Joe SMoe, will show up with his rants and dump copy/pasted BS from all those Troofer sites on this forum. Get all upset. Usually challenge us to a fight.
But its no wonder he's mad, we've probably cost him plenty in lost T-shirt sales.
Arthur
Wrong again!
NIST made $20,000,000 for a useless report!
Someone from the DBB, Nue-fonze paper made money from the Goverment for a paper anyone can see dosn't match reality.
If the evidence had not been destroyed and their was a real forensic investigation or even one that could simulate the mythical “gravity driven collapse” and trusses “ pulling-in the walls”, people might not be waking up.
You are so full of BS , look who started the last round of threats:
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 6 2007, 04:48 PM)
For the record, Malmo, you make me sick, too.
And you better pray we never meet face-to-face.
QUOTE
Nobody is claiming that conventional explosives were used.
Tell that to every other CDiot.
Thermobarics will knock stuff over and kill people, but they won't cut steel.
Neither will they pulverize concrete. They're low-explosives, like ANFO, except ANFO you can load into predrilled holes. You can't do that with a fuel-air mixture.
And the link recently posted of Mohammed's drawing showed a radio-controlled bomb set at the base of a perimeter column. That wasn't a thermobaric bomb, was it? If so, it wouldn't have had any effect on the column.
Was it thermite? If so, it would've simply drained straight down, producing no blast at all, because thermite doesn't go BANG!.
So thermite won't explain the "BANGs" heard, and thermobarics won't cut steel, and you're saying that "nobody is claiming that conventional explosives were used".
I think that *All* the other CDiots are claiming that some explosives are being used, but none of them are willing to state which, because there are logical arguments against any of them.
You'd rather just insinuate that some explosive placed someplace caused something... When you get definite about things, it gets easy to debunk the CD theory, so you stay vague deliberately.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 10:54 PM)
They all support Gordons[sic] website.
Glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that. Would have snorted it up my nose.
As it was, it was the funniest thing I've read today.
Thanks for the humor.
Glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that. Would have snorted it up my nose.
As it was, it was the funniest thing I've read today.
Thanks for the humor.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 10:54 PM)
Try these:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5378.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4144.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5407.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4145.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3970.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4077.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5431.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5371.jpg
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5381.jpg
They all support Gordons website.
They do??
Could you please explain in each photograph what you mean please. So what was used to get some results on the columns and how much of it was used. Rember you are blaming NIST for not researching enough, so show us how Gordon came to these conclusions. Lets see what kind of research he did to come to the conclusions he has made.
QUOTE
You are so hypicritical , look who started the last round of threats:
Gee, when you say "start", I'd have thought you'd have gone back to who said what first. That's usually what "start" means.
If you notice in your quote, I said he made me sick, TOO. If you'd scrolled back one post, you'd have seen that he spewed a long rant of personal bile directly against me (certainly not addressing any of the points I made), including the phrase "YOU MAKE ME SICK!".
If you want to get picky about it, what I said wasn't specifically a threat. His response, "I'll punch your face in, Bit*h!", was.
As for the *Profit Motive* behind the CDiots, I wish it were that easy. These CDiots aren't after the Truth, and the money they collect isn't all they're after, either, they're trolling for "True Believers", people willing to accept all their NWO bullsh*t, and get mad enough to go kill cops and feds and bomb buildings, themselves. Note how MalmoStooge was so fond of that guy who refuses to pay his income taxes. This is an appeal to the ignorant Americans who resent their taxes going to support social programs. This is one of the key beefs that White Supremists harp on all the time. Him tossing that into a discussion of 9/11 was just casting a broad net, hoping to find a White Supremist he could recruit to become a terrorist.
It's an orchestrated effort, and the motives aren't monetary, they're political. They want to recruit terrorists, and they figure the longer they play this game, the more idiots they can recruit.
We haven't heard from MalmoStooge in a while, maybe he's already strapped a bomb to his chest and headed out the door.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 10:54 PM)
Try these:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5381.jpg
They all support Gordons website.
Lets start with this picture. Show us how Gordon is right in this picture. Please elaborate.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 9 2007, 03:14 PM)
Tell that to every other CDiot.
Thermobarics will knock stuff over and kill people, but they won't cut steel.
Neither will they pulverize concrete. They're low-explosives, like ANFO, except ANFO you can load into predrilled holes. You can't do that with a fuel-air mixture.
And the link recently posted of Mohammed's drawing showed a radio-controlled bomb set at the base of a perimeter column. That wasn't a thermobaric bomb, was it? If so, it wouldn't have had any effect on the column.
Was it thermite? If so, it would've simply drained straight down, producing no blast at all, because thermite doesn't go BANG!.
So thermite won't explain the "BANGs" heard, and thermobarics won't cut steel, and you're saying that "nobody is claiming that conventional explosives were used".
I think that *All* the other CDiots are claiming that some explosives are being used, but none of them are willing to state which, because there are logical arguments against any of them.
You'd rather just insinuate that some explosive placed someplace caused something... When you get definite about things, it gets easy to debunk the CD theory, so you stay vague deliberately.
Are you serious, an OTC believer that didn’t fall for the OKC ANFO bomb ?
http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...ing/murrah2.jpg
Anyone can see the concrete was pulverized.
A patent for a thermite holder:
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 11:38 PM)
A patent for a thermite holder:
Ok, and can you please show us where they are using sulfur in this device. Let me give you a hint, it does not use Sulfur, and can only cut up to 2 inches thick. But i guess you already knew this.
www.patentstorm.us/patents/6183569.html
Ok, and can you please show us where they are using sulfur in this device. Let me give you a hint, it does not use Sulfur, and can only cut up to 2 inches thick. But i guess you already knew this.
www.patentstorm.us/patents/6183569.html
QUOTE (Jay38+Jun 9 2007, 03:35 PM)
Lets start with this picture. Show us how Gordon is right in this picture. Please elaborate.
Read this link first:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154
After you read it I will try to help you understand what he is predicting the column ends would look like .
Read this link first:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154
After you read it I will try to help you understand what he is predicting the column ends would look like .
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 11:46 PM)
Read his link first:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154
After you read it I will try to help you understand what he is predicting the column ends would look like .
I read this, but i don't see that in the picyure i asked you to explain.
The other end of the column would tend to show one flange torn away from the box section, just like the columns shown in these photographs:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154
After you read it I will try to help you understand what he is predicting the column ends would look like .
I read this, but i don't see that in the picyure i asked you to explain.
The other end of the column would tend to show one flange torn away from the box section, just like the columns shown in these photographs:
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 2, the apparatus 1 for cutting target material of the present invention is provided with a housing 2 having an inner cavity 4. An elongated nozzle 6 extends from the inner cavity 4 to an exterior surface 8 of the housing 2. In operation, exterior surface 8 of the housing 2 may be positioned generally adjacent to a surface 10 of target material 11 to provide the elongated nozzle 6 a line of engagement between the cutting apparatus 1 and the surface 10, or {character pullout}cutting zone{character pullout}, of the target material 11. The elongated nozzle 6, which extends from the inner cavity 4 of the housing 2 to the exterior surface 8 of the housing 2 may have a length L of about 0.3 to 1.5 inches. In the form shown, the target material 11 may have a thickness t. The preferable range of thickness t for materials cut by the apparatus 1 of the present invention is about 0.25 to 2 inches. The region where the cutting apparatus 1 performs its cutting function on these materials is preferably of a substantially uniform thickness.
3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said thermite charge includes a powder comprising, by weight, about 15% to 20% aluminum, about 78% to 85% CuO, about 1% to 3% SiC, and about 0.2% to 4.0% nitrocellulose.
Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 2, the apparatus 1 for cutting target material of the present invention is provided with a housing 2 having an inner cavity 4. An elongated nozzle 6 extends from the inner cavity 4 to an exterior surface 8 of the housing 2. In operation, exterior surface 8 of the housing 2 may be positioned generally adjacent to a surface 10 of target material 11 to provide the elongated nozzle 6 a line of engagement between the cutting apparatus 1 and the surface 10, or {character pullout}cutting zone{character pullout}, of the target material 11. The elongated nozzle 6, which extends from the inner cavity 4 of the housing 2 to the exterior surface 8 of the housing 2 may have a length L of about 0.3 to 1.5 inches. In the form shown, the target material 11 may have a thickness t. The preferable range of thickness t for materials cut by the apparatus 1 of the present invention is about 0.25 to 2 inches. The region where the cutting apparatus 1 performs its cutting function on these materials is preferably of a substantially uniform thickness.
3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said thermite charge includes a powder comprising, by weight, about 15% to 20% aluminum, about 78% to 85% CuO, about 1% to 3% SiC, and about 0.2% to 4.0% nitrocellulose.
QUOTE (Jay38+Jun 9 2007, 03:52 PM)
I read this, but i don't see that in the picyure i asked you to explain.
The other end of the column would tend to show one flange torn away from the box section, just like the columns shown in these photographs:
That picture was to show Arthurs the ends that look like they came from the mill.
Maybe then Dr. Bazant would have come to suspect that the strongest core columns were subject to concussive charges placed close to the welded junction of the three storey high core column sections. This gives cause and effect for the previous observations that the expulsions of dust and debris issued every three storeys down the building and not every storey. It would also explain why the expulsions issued firstly from the mid wall areas because they were directly opposite the core columns which were being attacked.
To confirm his suspicions and his role as the fall guy he may have tried to examine the steel recovered from the debris pile. With his engineering knowledge he, like other members of stj911.com, could envisage and identify the type of failure which would be expected in a welded box column which had been subject to an explosive charge in this manner.
In one end of the column he might expect to find two opposite concave faces, one concavity caused by the concussion of the explosion the other caused by the flanges tearing across each other. Such as in the column in this picture
The other end of the column would tend to show one flange torn away from the box section, just like the columns shown in these photographs:
Some of the other photos better show what Gordon was talking about. IF you need a picture by picture analysis I will try when I have more time.
The other end of the column would tend to show one flange torn away from the box section, just like the columns shown in these photographs:
That picture was to show Arthurs the ends that look like they came from the mill.
QUOTE
Maybe then Dr. Bazant would have come to suspect that the strongest core columns were subject to concussive charges placed close to the welded junction of the three storey high core column sections. This gives cause and effect for the previous observations that the expulsions of dust and debris issued every three storeys down the building and not every storey. It would also explain why the expulsions issued firstly from the mid wall areas because they were directly opposite the core columns which were being attacked.
To confirm his suspicions and his role as the fall guy he may have tried to examine the steel recovered from the debris pile. With his engineering knowledge he, like other members of stj911.com, could envisage and identify the type of failure which would be expected in a welded box column which had been subject to an explosive charge in this manner.
In one end of the column he might expect to find two opposite concave faces, one concavity caused by the concussion of the explosion the other caused by the flanges tearing across each other. Such as in the column in this picture
The other end of the column would tend to show one flange torn away from the box section, just like the columns shown in these photographs:
Some of the other photos better show what Gordon was talking about. IF you need a picture by picture analysis I will try when I have more time.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 10 2007, 12:01 AM)
Some of the other better show what Gordon was talking about. IF you need a picture by picture analysis I will try when I have more time.
Please do.
Please do.
QUOTE (Jay38+Jun 9 2007, 03:56 PM)
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 2, the apparatus 1 for cutting target material of the present invention is provided with a housing 2 having an inner cavity 4. An elongated nozzle 6 extends from the inner cavity 4 to an exterior surface 8 of the housing 2. In operation, exterior surface 8 of the housing 2 may be positioned generally adjacent to a surface 10 of target material 11 to provide the elongated nozzle 6 a line of engagement between the cutting apparatus 1 and the surface 10, or {character pullout}cutting zone{character pullout}, of the target material 11. The elongated nozzle 6, which extends from the inner cavity 4 of the housing 2 to the exterior surface 8 of the housing 2 may have a length L of about 0.3 to 1.5 inches. In the form shown, the target material 11 may have a thickness t. The preferable range of thickness t for materials cut by the apparatus 1 of the present invention is about 0.25 to 2 inches. The region where the cutting apparatus 1 performs its cutting function on these materials is preferably of a substantially uniform thickness.
3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said thermite charge includes a powder comprising, by weight, about 15% to 20% aluminum, about 78% to 85% CuO, about 1% to 3% SiC, and about 0.2% to 4.0% nitrocellulose.
Please explain what you are attempting to prove?
Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 2, the apparatus 1 for cutting target material of the present invention is provided with a housing 2 having an inner cavity 4. An elongated nozzle 6 extends from the inner cavity 4 to an exterior surface 8 of the housing 2. In operation, exterior surface 8 of the housing 2 may be positioned generally adjacent to a surface 10 of target material 11 to provide the elongated nozzle 6 a line of engagement between the cutting apparatus 1 and the surface 10, or {character pullout}cutting zone{character pullout}, of the target material 11. The elongated nozzle 6, which extends from the inner cavity 4 of the housing 2 to the exterior surface 8 of the housing 2 may have a length L of about 0.3 to 1.5 inches. In the form shown, the target material 11 may have a thickness t. The preferable range of thickness t for materials cut by the apparatus 1 of the present invention is about 0.25 to 2 inches. The region where the cutting apparatus 1 performs its cutting function on these materials is preferably of a substantially uniform thickness.
3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said thermite charge includes a powder comprising, by weight, about 15% to 20% aluminum, about 78% to 85% CuO, about 1% to 3% SiC, and about 0.2% to 4.0% nitrocellulose.
Please explain what you are attempting to prove?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 10 2007, 12:06 AM)
Please explain what you are attempting to prove?
I could ask the same from you. Why did you post that picture from that apparatus?
Gordon thinks explosives were used so i don't see the connection.
I could ask the same from you. Why did you post that picture from that apparatus?
Gordon thinks explosives were used so i don't see the connection.
Talking to CT-ers is quite annoying since you never seem to know which theory they belive in. They mix em all up it seems.
QUOTE (Jay38+Jun 9 2007, 04:08 PM)
I could ask the same from you. Why did you post that picture from that apparatus?
Gordon thinks explosives were used so i don't see the connection.
The person I was originally responding to said thermite had to go straight down.
This device appears to direct the thermite (I have never seen it used).
Gordon shows what is possible. I don't think anyone is claiming they have everything figured out (he is making good progress).
If the evidence had not been destroyed (without testing explosives ) we would not be dealing in hypotheticals (using videos for evidence).
Gordon thinks explosives were used so i don't see the connection.
The person I was originally responding to said thermite had to go straight down.
This device appears to direct the thermite (I have never seen it used).
Gordon shows what is possible. I don't think anyone is claiming they have everything figured out (he is making good progress).
If the evidence had not been destroyed (without testing explosives ) we would not be dealing in hypotheticals (using videos for evidence).
QUOTE
Talking to CT-ers is quite annoying since you never seem to know which theory they belive in. They mix em all up it seems.
By design, as I said. They don't care whether they can get someone to strap explosives to their chest because they believe in thermobaric bombs (which use conventional explosives, BTW, so the bomb-sniffing dogs would "alert" on those) or C4 or thermite or thermate or, for that matter, Invisible Godzilla, just so whatever BS theory they'll buy will convince them to kill themselves and others, that's all they're looking for.
If they can sell T-shirts in the process, all the better, then they'll have the money they need to buy the explosives for the vests.
And thermite STILL doesn't go BANG!.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Talking to CT-ers is quite annoying since you never seem to know which theory they belive in. They mix em all up it seems. |
By design, as I said. They don't care whether they can get someone to strap explosives to their chest because they believe in thermobaric bombs (which use conventional explosives, BTW, so the bomb-sniffing dogs would "alert" on those) or C4 or thermite or thermate or, for that matter, Invisible Godzilla, just so whatever BS theory they'll buy will convince them to kill themselves and others, that's all they're looking for.
If they can sell T-shirts in the process, all the better, then they'll have the money they need to buy the explosives for the vests.
And thermite STILL doesn't go BANG!.
Anyone can see the concrete was pulverized.
The OKC bomb collapsed the floors, which then broke apart as they collapsed, as the WTC floors did, by the process I've already described more than once. The blast itself didn't pulverize the concrete, nor could a thermobaric bomb by its blast. A thermobaric bomb overloads the structure causing it to fail. To pulverize concrete directly you need high-explosives, which, regardless of whatever a non-technical person says, thermobaric bombs *aren't*.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 9 2007, 05:18 PM)
By design, as I said. They don't care whether they can get someone to strap explosives to their chest because they believe in thermobaric bombs (which use conventional explosives, BTW, so the bomb-sniffing dogs would "alert" on those) or C4 or thermite or thermate or, for that matter, Invisible Godzilla, just so whatever BS theory they'll buy will convince them to kill themselves and others, that's all they're looking for.
If they can sell T-shirts in the process, all the better, then they'll have the money they need to buy the explosives for the vests.
And thermite STILL doesn't go BANG!.
The OKC bomb collapsed the floors, which then broke apart as they collapsed, as the WTC floors did, by the process I've already described more than once. The blast itself didn't pulverize the concrete, nor could a thermobaric bomb by its blast. A thermobaric bomb overloads the structure causing it to fail. To pulverize concrete directly you need high-explosives, which, regardless of whatever a non-technical person says, thermobaric bombs *aren't*.
Just do a quick Internet search for Thermite BOMB:
QUOTE
Thermite PIPE BOMB !! LOUD!
This is a simple pipe bomb I made back in 2001 and it was so loud my parents heared it inside the house a mile away!!
This is a simple pipe bomb I made back in 2001 and it was so loud my parents heared it inside the house a mile away!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0MBr_i_ut4
These idiots obviously did not have a technical person to tell them that thermite does not go BANG!
How do you tell the difference between direct and indirect pulverization (if you believe dropping a floor 3 storeys would pulverize concrete)?
QUOTE
These idiots obviously did not have a technical person to tell them that thermite does not go BANG!
It wasn't the thermite that made the loud noise, it was the iron pipe that contained the heat and pressure until it failed.
Can you explain to me why non-idiots planning a covert CD would make thermite go "BANG!" when it isn't necessary? Were they *deliberately* creating evidence of a CD? Thermite, on its own, makes a hissing sound as it burns (and burning is all thermite does, it's the aluminum stealing the oxygen from the rust that powers the thermal reaction).
So if you can burn through a horizontal patch of steel, quietly, or you can add an unnecessary airtight container to it and make it go "BANG!", and you're trying to be stealthy to keep your actions a secret, why do you make it in a way that makes a loud "BANG!"?
Thermobaric bombs use high-explosives to drive the fuel into an aerosol and later to detonate it (with an additive to send ignition sparks throughout the aerosol cloud). Why not a low explosive? Because a low explosive burns slow enough that the fireball would ignite the fuel before it became an aerosol.
High-explosives are used to put out oil well fires, employing the same phenomenon.
The FBI doesn't own all the bomb-sniffing dogs in NYC. So I suppose the rest of them were recruited by the NWO to keep their mouths shut...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| These idiots obviously did not have a technical person to tell them that thermite does not go BANG! |
It wasn't the thermite that made the loud noise, it was the iron pipe that contained the heat and pressure until it failed.
Can you explain to me why non-idiots planning a covert CD would make thermite go "BANG!" when it isn't necessary? Were they *deliberately* creating evidence of a CD? Thermite, on its own, makes a hissing sound as it burns (and burning is all thermite does, it's the aluminum stealing the oxygen from the rust that powers the thermal reaction).
So if you can burn through a horizontal patch of steel, quietly, or you can add an unnecessary airtight container to it and make it go "BANG!", and you're trying to be stealthy to keep your actions a secret, why do you make it in a way that makes a loud "BANG!"?
Thermobaric bombs use high-explosives to drive the fuel into an aerosol and later to detonate it (with an additive to send ignition sparks throughout the aerosol cloud). Why not a low explosive? Because a low explosive burns slow enough that the fireball would ignite the fuel before it became an aerosol.
High-explosives are used to put out oil well fires, employing the same phenomenon.
The FBI doesn't own all the bomb-sniffing dogs in NYC. So I suppose the rest of them were recruited by the NWO to keep their mouths shut...
How do you tell the difference between direct and indirect pulverization (if you believe dropping a floor 3 storeys would pulverize concrete)?
You're the one who's claiming that the ANFO pulverized the concrete. I've already described the means by which a low-explosive bomb like ANFO can drop a building, and I've already explained how falling chunks of concrete break into smaller chunks plus concrete dust. It's up to you to show how a low-explosive can exert enough stress in concrete to pulverize it if you're asserting that the WTC was collapsed without high explosives and that the concrete dust resulted from explosives, not from the "ball mill" process I've described more than once.
So, please tell me how a low-explosive can pulverize concrete? Enlighten me.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 10:24 PM)
What exactly does Thermate or Thermobaric warheads smell like?
Can you show any proof that dogs are trained to identify these?
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001969.html
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html
Nobody is claiming that conventional explosives were used.
As I said, SHELLS or other delivery systems which penetrate first in hardened targets.
"Armored vehicles are safe only when buttoned up, as the blast from a thermobaric warhead will 'flow' through hatches or other openings."
It doesn't destroy the armor. It also wouldn't destory the towers.
Can you show any proof that dogs are trained to identify these?
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001969.html
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html
Nobody is claiming that conventional explosives were used.
As I said, SHELLS or other delivery systems which penetrate first in hardened targets.
"Armored vehicles are safe only when buttoned up, as the blast from a thermobaric warhead will 'flow' through hatches or other openings."
It doesn't destroy the armor. It also wouldn't destory the towers.
QUOTE (Jay38+Jun 10 2007, 12:11 AM)
Talking to CT-ers is quite annoying since you never seem to know which theory they belive in. They mix em all up it seems.
Ha! They've got you so mixed up you said they have a "theory". Theory needs logic.
Ha! They've got you so mixed up you said they have a "theory". Theory needs logic.
QUOTE
QUOTE
THERMOBARIC FOES: EXPLOSIVE THREAT
Thermobaric warheads put the power to demolish buildings into the hands of the average U.S. marine. But Americans aren’t the only ones with the weapons. The Chinese, the Russians -- even guerilla groups -- now have thermobarics' shockingly destructive power in their grasps.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001969.html
THERMOBARIC FOES: EXPLOSIVE THREAT
Thermobaric warheads put the power to demolish buildings into the hands of the average U.S. marine. But Americans aren’t the only ones with the weapons. The Chinese, the Russians -- even guerilla groups -- now have thermobarics' shockingly destructive power in their grasps.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001969.html
Gee, thanks for that link, I just followed it. (I already knew how thermobarics work.)
From your *own* link:
they produce blast which has a lower overpressure but a longer duration than normal condensed explosives. In effect it is a shove rather than a punch: a thermobaric explosion does not smash a hole in a wall, it pushes the wall over. An instantaneous explosive overpressure of 50 psi [pounds per square inch] is needed to kill. But one sustained for a fraction of a second at 10 psi is also lethal. That’s how thermobarics kill."
Now, maybe you can explain to me how you can cite an article that corroborates everything I said, while asserting that I'm wrong?
Seems like "truth" really doesn't rank high on your list of priorities.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 10 2007, 02:40 AM)
Gee, thanks for that link, I just followed it. (I already knew how thermobarics work.)
From your *own* link:
they produce blast which has a lower overpressure but a longer duration than normal condensed explosives. In effect it is a shove rather than a punch: a thermobaric explosion does not smash a hole in a wall, it pushes the wall over. An instantaneous explosive overpressure of 50 psi [pounds per square inch] is needed to kill. But one sustained for a fraction of a second at 10 psi is also lethal. That’s how thermobarics kill."
Now, maybe you can explain to me how you can cite an article that corroborates everything I said, while asserting that I'm wrong?
Seems like "truth" really doesn't rank high on your list of priorities.
I love when they debunk themselves.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 9 2007, 06:40 PM)
Gee, thanks for that link, I just followed it. (I already knew how thermobarics work.)
From your *own* link:
they produce blast which has a lower overpressure but a longer duration than normal condensed explosives. In effect it is a shove rather than a punch: a thermobaric explosion does not smash a hole in a wall, it pushes the wall over. An instantaneous explosive overpressure of 50 psi [pounds per square inch] is needed to kill. But one sustained for a fraction of a second at 10 psi is also lethal. That’s how thermobarics kill."
Now, maybe you can explain to me how you can cite an article that corroborates everything I said, while asserting that I'm wrong?
Seems like "truth" really doesn't rank high on your list of priorities.
It depends on position in the confined space if it is HIGH or LOW pressure:
http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/infocent...degger_fm-5.jpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/infocent...degger_fm-7.gif
Figure C depicts the same explosive charge detonated in the center of a room. The shockwaves are reflected by the walls, producing zones of amplified pressure, in particular at the corners. Figure D depicts the pressure–time graph for this case. Unlike the uniform decline of pressure over time shown in Figure B, the pressure oscillates over time. The effect is non-linear; shock reflection in corners can multiply the peak pressure several times.
For someone who thinks he understands thermobaric explosions you sure are IGNORANT ( I have even provided links).
The military has computer software that can simulate and calculate the pressure in a confined area.
QUOTE (Jay38+Jun 9 2007, 06:35 PM)
Lets start with this picture. Show us how Gordon is right in this picture. Please elaborate.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 9 2007, 07:08 PM)
Or this picture
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5378.jpg
Please elaborate.
Arthur
Lower right hand corner.
NEXT!
This is fun.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5378.jpg
Please elaborate.
Arthur
QUOTE
The other end of the column would tend to show one flange torn away from the box section, just like the columns shown in these photographs:
Lower right hand corner.
NEXT!
This is fun.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 06:14 PM)
NIST made $20,000,000 for a useless report!
Poor baby, you got your panties in a twist?
Is it because the big bad NIST is upsetting you again?
Problem is only people of very limited skill in the art of structural engineering, you know, like YOU, think so.
Arthur
QUOTE
The military has computer software that can simulate and calculate the pressure in a confined area.
The mere fact that you can concentrate the shock waves from a low explosive doesn't make it a high explosive.
Too bad none of the provided plots show what the pressures actually are, otherwise we could compare them to the strength of concrete and see if any of those pressure spikes would be capable of pulverizing concrete (rather than just "shoving" it, as your own article pointed out was all it's capable of doing).
So, now are you insinuating that the government used a *shaped thermobaric charge* to collapse the WTC?
Why would they?
As far as that goes, why would they make thermite charges go BANG! when they don't have to? You never answered that question.
Incidentally, I've written more complicated simulations myself under military contracts. Pretty pictures, but I'm not that impressed.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 10:14 PM)
Lower right hand corner.
NEXT!
This is fun.
You think that looks like damage from a HIGH EXPLOSIVE?????
ROTFLMAO
That's friggin hilarious.
You're absolutely right, this is FUN!
Oh, please, do more.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 9 2007, 07:29 PM)
Poor baby, you got your panties in a twist?
Is it because the big bad NIST is upsetting you again?
Problem is only people of very limited skill in the art of structural engineering, you know, like YOU, think so.
Arthur
No Arthurs, However the part of the $20,000,000 that goes for PUBLIC RELATIONS (your job) really pisses me off!
Is it because the big bad NIST is upsetting you again?
Problem is only people of very limited skill in the art of structural engineering, you know, like YOU, think so.
Arthur
No Arthurs, However the part of the $20,000,000 that goes for PUBLIC RELATIONS (your job) really pisses me off!
QUOTE
You think that looks like damage from a HIGH EXPLOSIVE?????
ROTFLMAO
That's friggin hilarious.
You're absolutely right, this is FUN!
ROTFLMAO
That's friggin hilarious.
You're absolutely right, this is FUN!
I second that.
Clearly, it's where Invisible Godzilla took a bite out of it.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 10:35 PM)
No Arthurs, However the part of the $20,000,000 that goes for PUBLIC RELATIONS (your job) really pisses me off!
I know, to you EVERYBODY, including people who were here before this subject ever came up, is IN ON IT.
That, by the way, is a CLASSIC SIGN of PARANOIA.
Arthur
I know, to you EVERYBODY, including people who were here before this subject ever came up, is IN ON IT.
That, by the way, is a CLASSIC SIGN of PARANOIA.
Arthur
Have you noticed how he's changed the subject rather than answer my questions?
Incidentally, here's the homework question I mentioned a few pages back, comparing a jelly donut to the same mass of dynamite.
In other words, thermobaric bombs are more like jelly donuts than dynamite.
Incidentally, here's the homework question I mentioned a few pages back, comparing a jelly donut to the same mass of dynamite.
QUOTE
18.) Compare the energy stored in a 100-g stick of dynamite to that stored in a 100-g jelly doughnut. The energy density of a stick of dynamite is 4.3 x 109 J/tonne and 1 tonne = 1000 kg. How do the power outputs compare? [Ans: Edynamite = 0.43 x 106 Joules, Edoughnut = 1.6 x 106 Joules. Though the ENERGY content of the doughnut is about 4 times greater, the POWER output of dynamite is much greater since time of release is much shorter.]
In other words, thermobaric bombs are more like jelly donuts than dynamite.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 9 2007, 08:00 PM)
I know, to you EVERYBODY, including people who were here before this subject ever came up, is IN ON IT.
That, by the way, is a CLASSIC SIGN of PARANOIA.
Arthur
What is the diagnosis for someone that argues with people he considers PARANOID?
That, by the way, is a CLASSIC SIGN of PARANOIA.
Arthur
What is the diagnosis for someone that argues with people he considers PARANOID?
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 9 2007, 07:31 PM)
The mere fact that you can concentrate the shock waves from a low explosive doesn't make it a high explosive.
Too bad none of the provided plots show what the pressures actually are, otherwise we could compare them to the strength of concrete and see if any of those pressure spikes would be capable of pulverizing concrete (rather than just "shoving" it, as your own article pointed out was all it's capable of doing).
So, now are you insinuating that the government used a *shaped thermobaric charge* to collapse the WTC?
Why would they?
As far as that goes, why would they make thermite charges go BANG! when they don't have to? You never answered that question.
Incidentally, I've written more complicated simulations myself under military contracts. Pretty pictures, but I'm not that impressed.
Has it occurred to you that if it looked and smelled just like a controlled demolition the people responsible would need hundreds more shills
(very expensive and shills sometimes get unstable and are retired) on the Internet or even might have to pay for the crimes(OBL is not even being pursued) ?What if high level officials had not gone along with the destruction of evidence and reported the real air quality problems stopping the clean-up?
Two videos of thermobarics "shoving" the walls:
http://warfare.ru/video/2007/rpo.wmv
Look at the brick house at 33 seconds.
http://warfare.ru/?catid=278&linkid=1847&video=true&id=109
QUOTE
Has it occurred to you that if it looked and smelled just like a controlled demolition the people responsible would need hundreds more shills (very expensive and shill sometimes get unstable and quite) on the Internet or even might have to pay for the crime ?
That's why I asked you why someone who knows something about explosives would go out of their way to make thermite go BANG!.
Also, why all the random "explosions" all throughout the buildings, if they could just use nice, quiet thermite to drop the towers?
Are you suggesting that the conspirators planted explosives throughout the structure or not?
And, once again, thermobaric bombs DO use high explosives to make the fuel into an aerosol prior to detonation. Bomb-sniffing dogs would've smelled it (unless you're saying that the dogs were in on the plot, too).
I'd love to hear your views on these questions.
(That's why I keep asking them.)
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 9 2007, 08:28 PM)
That's why I asked you why someone who knows something about explosives would go out of their way to make thermite go BANG!.
Also, why all the random "explosions" all throughout the buildings, if they could just use nice, quiet thermite to drop the towers?
Are you suggesting that the conspirators planted explosives throughout the structure or not?
And, once again, thermobaric bombs DO use high explosives to make the fuel into an aerosol prior to detonation. Bomb-sniffing dogs would've smelled it (unless you're saying that the dogs were in on the plot, too).
I'd love to hear your views on these questions.
(That's why I keep asking them.)
I don't think thermite could do the job alone (might leave some of the tower standing and slow down the clean-up).
I have never listened to a CD without the windows removed (have no idea how load it would be).
Low pressure explosive used to push the columns at the splices (not as distinct a sound as high explosives) along with thermate (to weaken the connections) might be enough.
I am sure someone would be able to figure out an explosive the dogs could not recognize after detonation .The chemical residue would be more of a problem and that is why the steel was quickly recycled.
QUOTE
Two videos of thermobarics "shoving" the walls:
Precisely what they show.
None of the buildings were concrete, and even the mud-brick how basically just fell down. The rubble was just bricks that weren't stacked on top of each other anymore. The house got shoved apart, much like your own article said. No pulverized concrete. Let me know if you find something that shows concrete being pulverized by a thermobaric bomb.
I've seen videos of them shot in super-slow motion photography, and yes, they're effective against personnel, and yes, they'll push on a structure and make it fail. No, it isn't the same as a high explosive. The shockwave onset isn't fast enough to concentrate the forces generated faster than the concrete can distribute the forces throughout its mass. The analogy between a punch versus a shove is a good one. Push someone hard enough, he may fall over and hit his head on the ground. It isn't the same as dropping him with a knock-out punch. The punch delivers more power to a local area, which is how bones get broken. The energy in the punch is delivered too fast for it to be transmitted throughout the body, so the effect is local and devastating, unlike a shove.
Maybe you should look for a video that shows what C4 does and compare the two. It isn't a nitpick, there really is a difference.
[/QUOTE]don't think thermite could do the job alone (might leave some of the tower standing and slow down the clean-up).[QUOTE]
Let me get this straight - You think that they could've destroyed *most* of the WTC with thermite, which makes no appreciable sound, so there'd be very little chance of getting caught, but they figured they'd go ahead and use MILITARY THERMOBARIC BOMBS just to make the cleanup quicker?!?
They'd be so stupid that they'd make bombs that people could hear and see, which would leave evidence that could PROVE they did it, just to make the cleanup QUICKER?
!!!!
Let me do your work for you.
Steel was the only thing holding the building up. Thermite can cut steel. Thermite could've conceivably cut the main columns, in one place, which would've caused the building(s) to collapse.
So why all the "explosions"?
The answer is, there were no explosions. As I've explained a bunch of times, when a column or truss fails under load, that suddenly-unbalanced force recoils into the structure, which is steel, and the recoil travels the length of the structure at the speed of sound in steel. Which is 20x the speed of sound in air. Which is why a failed strut or truss 80 floors up, "BANG!", gets heard at ground level before it gets heard through the air. It traveled through the steel and coupled to the foundation and that's how you get loud noises coming from the basement. Air is a lossy medium, so the direct air-path gets attenuated more than the steel path, as steel isn't as lossy as air. (Especially when there's smoke/dust in the air.)
OK, so the BANGs aren't caused by explosions, that's just what steel structures do.
So the people who say they heard "explosions" didn't hear explosions, they heard the steel structure transmitting the impulse-failed loads.
So why bother with thermobaric anything, if all you need to do is cut the core columns? Thermobarics are loud as he!!, and you don't need them to drop the building. Also, look closely at those videos, they create a visible shockwave. With all the video cameras aimed at the WTC, don't you think any of them would've seen the shockwaves that are clearly visible in all the videos you provided links to? Wouldn't that be the "smoking gun" of a CD?
So, no thermobarics. Not needed, you can drop a building with nice, quiet thermite. No BANGs.
Of course, if you just get the core hot enough that it loses, say, 50% of its strength, simultaneous to the loss of lots of the structural integrity of the curtain wall on one side, the building will drop on its own. Fire will weaken steel that much. Especially a fire started with all that jet fuel.
So you don't need thermobaric bombs OR thermite, just an airplane going 450mph with full tanks.
Oops! No CD necessary to drop the WTC towers.
Let me get this straight - You think that they could've destroyed *most* of the WTC with thermite, which makes no appreciable sound, so there'd be very little chance of getting caught, but they figured they'd go ahead and use MILITARY THERMOBARIC BOMBS just to make the cleanup quicker?!?
They'd be so stupid that they'd make bombs that people could hear and see, which would leave evidence that could PROVE they did it, just to make the cleanup QUICKER?
!!!!
Let me do your work for you.
Steel was the only thing holding the building up. Thermite can cut steel. Thermite could've conceivably cut the main columns, in one place, which would've caused the building(s) to collapse.
So why all the "explosions"?
The answer is, there were no explosions. As I've explained a bunch of times, when a column or truss fails under load, that suddenly-unbalanced force recoils into the structure, which is steel, and the recoil travels the length of the structure at the speed of sound in steel. Which is 20x the speed of sound in air. Which is why a failed strut or truss 80 floors up, "BANG!", gets heard at ground level before it gets heard through the air. It traveled through the steel and coupled to the foundation and that's how you get loud noises coming from the basement. Air is a lossy medium, so the direct air-path gets attenuated more than the steel path, as steel isn't as lossy as air. (Especially when there's smoke/dust in the air.)
OK, so the BANGs aren't caused by explosions, that's just what steel structures do.
So the people who say they heard "explosions" didn't hear explosions, they heard the steel structure transmitting the impulse-failed loads.
So why bother with thermobaric anything, if all you need to do is cut the core columns? Thermobarics are loud as he!!, and you don't need them to drop the building. Also, look closely at those videos, they create a visible shockwave. With all the video cameras aimed at the WTC, don't you think any of them would've seen the shockwaves that are clearly visible in all the videos you provided links to? Wouldn't that be the "smoking gun" of a CD?
So, no thermobarics. Not needed, you can drop a building with nice, quiet thermite. No BANGs.
Of course, if you just get the core hot enough that it loses, say, 50% of its strength, simultaneous to the loss of lots of the structural integrity of the curtain wall on one side, the building will drop on its own. Fire will weaken steel that much. Especially a fire started with all that jet fuel.
So you don't need thermobaric bombs OR thermite, just an airplane going 450mph with full tanks.
Oops! No CD necessary to drop the WTC towers.
QUOTE
that is why the steel was quickly recycled.
Since this topic has come up a couple of times, let me address it.
The reason they didn't declare the whole WTC site as a *crime scene* was that there are protocols and policies that apply to how evidence is collected, tagged, and stored. Those protocols would've required the cleanup to take place by forensics teams, not firemen. Each of the concrete chunks would've required bagging and storage in the Police Evidence Lockup, like it was a crack rock or a gun used in a robbery.
Even if you feel that they could've "bent the rules" and still treated everything *sensible* as evidence, allowing the forensics teams extraordinary discretion to "cherry-pick" through the evidence and decide on-the-fly which stuff looked interesting and which stuff didn't, there are only a handful of forensics people in NYC, and thousands of firemen. And there were human remains in the rubble, starting to rot. Guiliani had good reason to do what he did, which was to expedite the cleanup.
Maybe you recall that when it happened, everyone said it'd take at least two years to clean up the mess. He got it done a lot quicker, and that was good for NYC, in general, because the site, as it was, was wrecking the local economy. (Would you want to eat pizza downwind of rotting human remains?)
The amount of steel was enormous, more than could reasonably be stored anywhere. Treating it like the NTSB would've, as some have suggested, would've required reconstruction of the WTC at least to the level where all the pieces would be reassembled to show the point of impact and the first-collapsed floors. Except those steel members weren't numbered so you couldn't exactly know which ones to keep and which ones you could scrap. You can't tell one from the other, so how do you go about reconstructing anything?
And you're supposed to store that steel someplace like it's evidence? That means secure from theft or tampering. Which would mean armed guards watching it around the clock, and not just one, because you'd have to either build someplace big enough to store all the steel from all three WTC towers, or hire guards to surround the heap 24/7.
And why?
You'd still assume they'd tampered with the evidence if it didn't support your CD theory.
So why bother?
They did keep some of the steel from the towers for analysis, as indicated in the NIST reports, sufficient to do engineering analyses. It was a representative sample, and it was big enough for supporting the science of the study.
The cause of the WTC attacks was someone else's responsibility, not NIST's. NIST never said "Osama bin Laden plotted the attacks".
Osama bin Laden said that himself. (Why don't you take his word for it?)
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 9 2007, 04:12 PM)
Myself, I would have though the reason for the diagonal cuts was that an horizontal cut would allow the slag to puddle on top of the lower surface and resolidify behind the cutting flame. The diagonal cut allows the slag to drip away.
Well yeah, kinda sorta, or to an extent. But when cutting, the idea is to blow a path through the heated up steel. If you're not blowing all the way through making a clean cut, then you need to increase the oxygen pressure on the gauge/valve. You'll can have a slag trail hanging down on the inside edge, but it shouldn't be 'in the cut'. If so, then that would show an inexperienced cutter.
To be honest, most of the cuts I've seen weren't very good ones, but (here I'm going to use an expression heard quite often on rush jobs) they "weren't making Swiss watches", just trying to get it cut. So yeah, it wasn't like building the structure where you sometimes need to trim a piece to make a good fit... then you'd be set up to make a good clean cut.
Well yeah, kinda sorta, or to an extent. But when cutting, the idea is to blow a path through the heated up steel. If you're not blowing all the way through making a clean cut, then you need to increase the oxygen pressure on the gauge/valve. You'll can have a slag trail hanging down on the inside edge, but it shouldn't be 'in the cut'. If so, then that would show an inexperienced cutter.
To be honest, most of the cuts I've seen weren't very good ones, but (here I'm going to use an expression heard quite often on rush jobs) they "weren't making Swiss watches", just trying to get it cut. So yeah, it wasn't like building the structure where you sometimes need to trim a piece to make a good fit... then you'd be set up to make a good clean cut.
QUOTE (3bodyproblem+Jun 9 2007, 04:44 PM)
I thought about this, and I'm gonna tell from working with stuff hooked up to cranes, you never want to have things swinging if you can help it. If you had something like a column hooked up to the crane and you were cutting it you would want it to stay right were it is once it's severed.
That's correct, but... You rig it to the crane and boom him down or up, to the left or right, or whatever's needed to get it plumb, but you can only get close, so there's subject to be a little swing virtually every time. Watch ironworkers picking a load, they have tag lines and "hands on" when the load first gets clear, because it's almost never at the exact centerline pick point.
That's correct, but... You rig it to the crane and boom him down or up, to the left or right, or whatever's needed to get it plumb, but you can only get close, so there's subject to be a little swing virtually every time. Watch ironworkers picking a load, they have tag lines and "hands on" when the load first gets clear, because it's almost never at the exact centerline pick point.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 9 2007, 09:34 PM)
Since this topic has come up a couple of times, let me address it.
The reason they didn't declare the whole WTC site as a *crime scene* was that there are protocols and policies that apply to how evidence is collected, tagged, and stored. Those protocols would've required the cleanup to take place by forensics teams, not firemen. Each of the concrete chunks would've required bagging and storage in the Police Evidence Lockup, like it was a crack rock or a gun used in a robbery.
Even if you feel that they could've "bent the rules" and still treated everything *sensible* as evidence, allowing the forensics teams extraordinary discretion to "cherry-pick" through the evidence and decide on-the-fly which stuff looked interesting and which stuff didn't, there are only a handful of forensics people in NYC, and thousands of firemen. And there were human remains in the rubble, starting to rot. Guiliani had good reason to do what he did, which was to expedite the cleanup.
Maybe you recall that when it happened, everyone said it'd take at least two years to clean up the mess. He got it done a lot quicker, and that was good for NYC, in general, because the site, as it was, was wrecking the local economy. (Would you want to eat pizza downwind of rotting human remains?)
The amount of steel was enormous, more than could reasonably be stored anywhere. Treating it like the NTSB would've, as some have suggested, would've required reconstruction of the WTC at least to the level where all the pieces would be reassembled to show the point of impact and the first-collapsed floors. Except those steel members weren't numbered so you couldn't exactly know which ones to keep and which ones you could scrap. You can't tell one from the other, so how do you go about reconstructing anything?
And you're supposed to store that steel someplace like it's evidence? That means secure from theft or tampering. Which would mean armed guards watching it around the clock, and not just one, because you'd have to either build someplace big enough to store all the steel from all three WTC towers, or hire guards to surround the heap 24/7.
And why?
You'd still assume they'd tampered with the evidence if it didn't support your CD theory.
So why bother?
They did keep some of the steel from the towers for analysis, as indicated in the NIST reports, sufficient to do engineering analyses. It was a representative sample, and it was big enough for supporting the science of the study.
The cause of the WTC attacks was someone else's responsibility, not NIST's. NIST never said "Osama bin Laden plotted the attacks".
Osama bin Laden said that himself. (Why don't you take his word for it?)
This is a photo of the clean-up of WTC7. The picture was taken on Sept 27, 2001. All the steel is already removed from WTC 7. This is unbelievable, even if you planed ahead of time, it still is amazing. In the real world, they would be deciding the best way to investigate the only steel building to totally collapse from fire.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4247.jpg
There was absolutely no reason to remove the steel from WTC7 (would not hold up the search and rescue of the other buildings). NIST still does not understand the collapse.
WTC7 STEEL IS ALL REMOVED 16 DAYS AFTER THE ATTACK!
QUOTE (Jay38+Jun 9 2007, 06:18 PM)
Please look at the next video, and try and make that claim again.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3634528756000094312&hl=en
look. i really don't know what you're trying to make me imagine i see.
i do know, that the crush up/crush down theory requires the top to act as a rigid body, ie. keeping it's structural integrity, and the bottom part is supposed to be getting crushed and deformed and is supposed to be unable to support the sudden impact from the falling 'mother of all sledgehammers'.
well it WAS stopped, because anything below the red line didn't budge, deform, buckle, peel, pop, or give up the ghost in any way whatsoever. so, if you think bringing the plane's impact point into the argument is at all valid, i suggest you redo your homework.
what is see in the first moments of collapse, is a bright white flash from through the smoke in the middle of the wall at initiation(right side of the screen), and right about where the bottom red line was drawn by gordon ross, and i see that the top part has broken apart itself as it descends, and i see that the bottom part, ie. at the level the bottom red line was drawn by gordon ross, doesn't budge.
the whacky OCT math does not reflect this physical reality. it claims the bottom was breaking apart while the top portion kept it's shape, and this top chunk was some kind of unstoppable hammer. it was dust and kindling sticks, as is clearly shown in the fine video you linked to.
here, i can do links ... watch the top fall apart, while the bottom remains RIGID in this video. look for the flashes, too. there is more than one, but there is a very obvious one at collapse initiation.
and, regarding thermobarics, DAMN that's an impressive fireball.
and regarding whether thermobarics or thermate or rdx were used, (or spacebeams and nukes and a tesla howitzer), and whether the triggers were wired or wireless, ....
they used them all(possibly). each device has a different function. weaken slowly with thermate, than a thermobaric blast or two, and then some rdx.
also, at the same time the spray on rocket fuel 'fireproofing replacement' was triggered. (thanks for that neu fonze)
why do OCTs insist on one type of device? and they accuse 'us' of 'one dimensional thinking'.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3634528756000094312&hl=en
look. i really don't know what you're trying to make me imagine i see.
i do know, that the crush up/crush down theory requires the top to act as a rigid body, ie. keeping it's structural integrity, and the bottom part is supposed to be getting crushed and deformed and is supposed to be unable to support the sudden impact from the falling 'mother of all sledgehammers'.
well it WAS stopped, because anything below the red line didn't budge, deform, buckle, peel, pop, or give up the ghost in any way whatsoever. so, if you think bringing the plane's impact point into the argument is at all valid, i suggest you redo your homework.
what is see in the first moments of collapse, is a bright white flash from through the smoke in the middle of the wall at initiation(right side of the screen), and right about where the bottom red line was drawn by gordon ross, and i see that the top part has broken apart itself as it descends, and i see that the bottom part, ie. at the level the bottom red line was drawn by gordon ross, doesn't budge.
the whacky OCT math does not reflect this physical reality. it claims the bottom was breaking apart while the top portion kept it's shape, and this top chunk was some kind of unstoppable hammer. it was dust and kindling sticks, as is clearly shown in the fine video you linked to.
here, i can do links ... watch the top fall apart, while the bottom remains RIGID in this video. look for the flashes, too. there is more than one, but there is a very obvious one at collapse initiation.
and, regarding thermobarics, DAMN that's an impressive fireball.
and regarding whether thermobarics or thermate or rdx were used, (or spacebeams and nukes and a tesla howitzer), and whether the triggers were wired or wireless, ....
they used them all(possibly). each device has a different function. weaken slowly with thermate, than a thermobaric blast or two, and then some rdx.
also, at the same time the spray on rocket fuel 'fireproofing replacement' was triggered. (thanks for that neu fonze)
why do OCTs insist on one type of device? and they accuse 'us' of 'one dimensional thinking'.
QUOTE (Jay38+Jun 9 2007, 06:21 PM)
Wow, he found a picture of 1 Column!!! Where is the rest? And when was this picture taken?
i took it in my back yard. i've been building a fake replica of the aftermath, so i can make money selling conspiracy movies and books, while disrepecting the victim's families.
wow. no one was allowed near ground zero. it's surprising there are any pictures.
i took it in my back yard. i've been building a fake replica of the aftermath, so i can make money selling conspiracy movies and books, while disrepecting the victim's families.
wow. no one was allowed near ground zero. it's surprising there are any pictures.
QUOTE
the only steel building to totally collapse from fire.
You left out the *airplane impact* part of that. The impacts damaged the structures, so it wasn't just the fire that did the deed. Damaged structure from airplane impact plus weakened remaining structure due to the heat from the intense fire = collapsed WTC tower.
And steel buildings collapse from fire all the time. It isn't even considered newsworthy. It's a routine occurrance.
Just another Big Lie being spread by "troothers".
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 10 2007, 04:00 AM)
I know, to you EVERYBODY, including people who were here before this subject ever came up, is IN ON IT.
That, by the way, is a CLASSIC SIGN of PARANOIA.
Arthur
just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
how many germans were in on starting world war two?
a little concentrated propaganda goes a long way. you can get good people to do bad things if they only know a tiny piece of the big picture.
cautious and curious people, or, paranoids, if you prefer, find the big picture for themselves.
nice name calling, though, shill.
That, by the way, is a CLASSIC SIGN of PARANOIA.
Arthur
just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
how many germans were in on starting world war two?
a little concentrated propaganda goes a long way. you can get good people to do bad things if they only know a tiny piece of the big picture.
cautious and curious people, or, paranoids, if you prefer, find the big picture for themselves.
nice name calling, though, shill.
QUOTE
here, i can do links ... watch the top fall apart, while the bottom remains RIGID in this video. look for the flashes, too. there is more than one, but there is a very obvious one at collapse initiation.
and, regarding thermobarics, DAMN that's an impressive fireball.
and, regarding thermobarics, DAMN that's an impressive fireball.
I looked at the video four times after reading your post, and I still can't see anything that looks suspicious. It's a burning building, still on-fire, and when it starts to collapse, the flames that were inside got shoved out with the air in the collapsing floor.
Those "flashes" are just flames getting blown through the standing smoke.
Also, they start *after* the building starts to fall. Was the building structure psychic and started falling before the "explosives" went off, or was the speed of light really slow that day?
You guys need to see some real explosions before you go off saying anything in that video looks like an explosion.
You do understand that when the ceiling drops to the floor, that the air that used to be between the floor and ceiling has to get out of the way, right?
Do some simple math, calculate how fast that 20tons of air per floor has to move to get out of the way of the falling ceiling. Here's a hint: It starts out going slow, but has to speed up as the ceiling gets closer to the floor. When the air escapes, it takes smoke, dust, and flames with it.
Look again at those thermobaric bomb videos. You can see the shockwaves. If a thermobaric bomb went off, don't you think you'd see the shockwave going through that cloud of smoke and dust? The field of view of the camera on the WTC included the full width of the WTC tower, and video is 30frames per second, so you'd see the shockwave propagating out through the smoke/dust. What you're calling a "blast" is actually just the air getting out of the way of the falling building.
Exactly what you'd expect, if you understood simple physics.
There's no mystery here, only the physics that you don't get.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 10 2007, 07:20 AM)
here, i can do links ... watch the top fall apart, while the bottom remains RIGID in this video. look for the flashes, too. there is more than one, but there is a very obvious one at collapse initiation.
and, regarding thermobarics, DAMN that's an impressive fireball.
Hello Newton,
That's an interesting video. I disagree that is does not show the upper block to behave rigidly, however it seems that the failure zone might be located higher than I thought. It is hard to count the floors but it seems that the floor that ejects lots of flames (that's hot combustion gas from the fire floors IMO) might be located around the 98th floor and the bulk of the gas seems to be ejected from it quite some time into the collapse. I don't see how to reconcile this with the collapse beginning around the 96th storey. This would seem not to be accounted for by the hypothesis that the crush down zone is merely hidden behind the perimeter wall. The tilt also occurs in the wrong direction to account for the late ejection of the gas on this visible side of the building.
I wonder how David B. Bensons (pure crush-down) model would match NEU-FONZE's data if the collapse were taken to be initiated something like four floors up (at the 100th storey, say).
[On edit: this might produce skewed results if the greatly increased weights of the hat-truss floors have not been accounted for in the model.]
I think a bit of initial crush-up taking place concurrently with the crush-down would not necessarily make a very significant difference. Allowing for some crush up would also reduce the initial load at the level of the crush down front, so that the net acceleration of the top could be similar to what pure crush-down predicts.
and, regarding thermobarics, DAMN that's an impressive fireball.
Hello Newton,
That's an interesting video. I disagree that is does not show the upper block to behave rigidly, however it seems that the failure zone might be located higher than I thought. It is hard to count the floors but it seems that the floor that ejects lots of flames (that's hot combustion gas from the fire floors IMO) might be located around the 98th floor and the bulk of the gas seems to be ejected from it quite some time into the collapse. I don't see how to reconcile this with the collapse beginning around the 96th storey. This would seem not to be accounted for by the hypothesis that the crush down zone is merely hidden behind the perimeter wall. The tilt also occurs in the wrong direction to account for the late ejection of the gas on this visible side of the building.
I wonder how David B. Bensons (pure crush-down) model would match NEU-FONZE's data if the collapse were taken to be initiated something like four floors up (at the 100th storey, say).
[On edit: this might produce skewed results if the greatly increased weights of the hat-truss floors have not been accounted for in the model.]
I think a bit of initial crush-up taking place concurrently with the crush-down would not necessarily make a very significant difference. Allowing for some crush up would also reduce the initial load at the level of the crush down front, so that the net acceleration of the top could be similar to what pure crush-down predicts.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 10 2007, 04:04 AM)
In other words, thermobaric bombs are more like jelly donuts than dynamite.
Are you proposing that secretly planted jelly doughnuts might have contributed to the initiation of the bageling process?
Are you proposing that secretly planted jelly doughnuts might have contributed to the initiation of the bageling process?
QUOTE
Are you proposing that secretly planted jelly doughnuts might have contributed to the initiation of the bageling process?
They were used to lure Invisible Godzilla.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 10 2007, 09:23 AM)
They were used to lure Invisible Godzilla.
Your theory really is taking shape. When are you going to publish?
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 10 2007, 08:29 AM)
Hello Newton,
That's an interesting video. I disagree that is does not show the upper block to behave rigidly, however it seems that the failure zone might be located higher than I thought. It is hard to count the floors but it seems that the floor that ejects lots of flames (that's hot combustion gas from the fire floors IMO) might be located around the 98th floor and the bulk of the gas seems to be ejected from it quite some time into the collapse. I don't see how to reconcile this with the collapse beginning around the 96th storey. This would seem not to be accounted for by the hypothesis that the crush down zone is merely hidden behind the perimeter wall. The tilt also occurs in the wrong direction to account for the late ejection of the gas on this visible side of the building.
I wonder how David B. Bensons (pure crush-down) model would match NEU-FONZE's data if the collapse were taken to be initiated something like four floors up (at the 100th storey, say).
[On edit: this might produce skewed results if the greatly increased weights of the hat-truss floors have not been accounted for in the model.]
I think a bit of initial crush-up taking place concurrently with the crush-down would not necessarily make a very significant difference. Allowing for some crush up would also reduce the initial load at the level of the crush down front, so that the net acceleration of the top could be similar to what pure crush-down predicts.
Pierre, I would suggest looking at this video.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03...emolition-4.avi
The seperation of the movement between the upper and lower blocks take upon a V type shape on this face of the tower.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/debunking_911/i...ost&id=12797843
The area around this V type shape especially in the lower block was the first area to be crushed. Gordons lines are incorrectly drawn on many levels. If you watch the video Gordon used carefully you can see even the top line on his final frame is drawn to low.
http://www.studyof911.com/video/files/wtc1_coll_N_01.mpg
That's an interesting video. I disagree that is does not show the upper block to behave rigidly, however it seems that the failure zone might be located higher than I thought. It is hard to count the floors but it seems that the floor that ejects lots of flames (that's hot combustion gas from the fire floors IMO) might be located around the 98th floor and the bulk of the gas seems to be ejected from it quite some time into the collapse. I don't see how to reconcile this with the collapse beginning around the 96th storey. This would seem not to be accounted for by the hypothesis that the crush down zone is merely hidden behind the perimeter wall. The tilt also occurs in the wrong direction to account for the late ejection of the gas on this visible side of the building.
I wonder how David B. Bensons (pure crush-down) model would match NEU-FONZE's data if the collapse were taken to be initiated something like four floors up (at the 100th storey, say).
[On edit: this might produce skewed results if the greatly increased weights of the hat-truss floors have not been accounted for in the model.]
I think a bit of initial crush-up taking place concurrently with the crush-down would not necessarily make a very significant difference. Allowing for some crush up would also reduce the initial load at the level of the crush down front, so that the net acceleration of the top could be similar to what pure crush-down predicts.
Pierre, I would suggest looking at this video.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03...emolition-4.avi
The seperation of the movement between the upper and lower blocks take upon a V type shape on this face of the tower.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/debunking_911/i...ost&id=12797843
The area around this V type shape especially in the lower block was the first area to be crushed. Gordons lines are incorrectly drawn on many levels. If you watch the video Gordon used carefully you can see even the top line on his final frame is drawn to low.
http://www.studyof911.com/video/files/wtc1_coll_N_01.mpg
QUOTE
When are you going to publish?
First, I need to find someone who died and tie their death to Invisible Godzilla.
I was thinking of finding someone who'd died mysteriously, who was somehow linked to Area 51 (the invisible part) or having something to do with reptiles or biochemistry (the Godzilla part), but then I realized that since this is a conspiracy theory, death from natural causes just makes it all the more convincing that he was murdered, and then I realized that he could have no associations with anything Invisible Godzilla-like, and that would make it even better, showing how diligently the MiB were to cover-up any and all documentary evidence of his connections to Invisible Godzilla.
Now that I think of it, I don't even need a real person, I can just make up a name and claim that he was "disappeared" and his identity erased as part of the coverup.
Now, all I need is a cover-shot photograph that proves Invisible Godzilla can't be seen, and I'm ready to go to print.
QUOTE (ScottS+Jun 10 2007, 09:57 AM)
Pierre, I would suggest looking at this video.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03...emolition-4.avi
The seperation of the movement between the upper and lower blocks take upon a V type shape on this face of the tower.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/debunking_911/i...ost&id=12797843
The area around this V type shape especially in the lower block was the first area to be crushed. Gordons lines are incorrectly drawn on many levels. If you watch the video Gordon used carefully you can see even the top line on his final frame is drawn to low.
http://www.studyof911.com/video/files/wtc1_coll_N_01.mpg
Thanks ScottS,
I had noticed about Ross's green line being drawn too low. The red line in the last frame just is a repeat of the same error.
Thanks for the video link. It's a bit slow to download, so I'll study it later.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03...emolition-4.avi
The seperation of the movement between the upper and lower blocks take upon a V type shape on this face of the tower.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/debunking_911/i...ost&id=12797843
The area around this V type shape especially in the lower block was the first area to be crushed. Gordons lines are incorrectly drawn on many levels. If you watch the video Gordon used carefully you can see even the top line on his final frame is drawn to low.
http://www.studyof911.com/video/files/wtc1_coll_N_01.mpg
Thanks ScottS,
I had noticed about Ross's green line being drawn too low. The red line in the last frame just is a repeat of the same error.
Thanks for the video link. It's a bit slow to download, so I'll study it later.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 9 2007, 07:37 PM)
NOPE
See NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Figure 4-2
Its a recovered core column that is SEVERELY BENT (was in the impact zone) but the WELDED connection is fine.
Oh, and if weak welds are part of YOUR theory, then first YOU have to PROVE they were weak.
Almost all the "perfect ends" I've seen are from the BOLTED perimeter columns.
Arthur
See NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Figure 4-2
Its a recovered core column that is SEVERELY BENT (was in the impact zone) but the WELDED connection is fine.
Oh, and if weak welds are part of YOUR theory, then first YOU have to PROVE they were weak.
Almost all the "perfect ends" I've seen are from the BOLTED perimeter columns.
Arthur
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl in his examination of the WTC columns, came to the conclusion that the core splices were not full strength welds.
QUOTE
The splices of the columns were in most cases, field partial penetration welds or cover plate splices. However, since the core columns were gravity columns with relatively high compression in them and remote likelihood of being subjected to tension, the column splices in the core appeared to be minimal erection splices.
That particular column, C-88a, was suspected of being severed by the plane impact. It could be that at the time of the plane impact, that it was sufficiently loaded and braced to protect the welded splice, or it's possible that some splices were welded deeply and quite strong. Notice how the upper end of the column separated at the plate connections and bent towards the plane impact direction. I assume the southward bend was due to the impact of the upper block. The plate separation may have resulted from the plane impact.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 10 2007, 08:09 AM)
just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
That's like saying "Just because I have a stomach virus, doesn't mean I'm sick."
That's just another one of Alex Jones propaganda tools.
That's like saying "Just because I have a stomach virus, doesn't mean I'm sick."
That's just another one of Alex Jones propaganda tools.
The absolute BEST video for collapse initiation...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...528290546&hl=en
You can SEE the columns pulling in across many floors. The bottom of that front folds inward like a piece of paper. What striking is how slow it happened. What's also lacking are any explosions and squibs from that floor. This video tells me almost all I need to know.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...528290546&hl=en
You can SEE the columns pulling in across many floors. The bottom of that front folds inward like a piece of paper. What striking is how slow it happened. What's also lacking are any explosions and squibs from that floor. This video tells me almost all I need to know.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 9 2007, 11:52 PM)
You left out the *airplane impact* part of that. The impacts damaged the structures, so it wasn't just the fire that did the deed. Damaged structure from airplane impact plus weakened remaining structure due to the heat from the intense fire = collapsed WTC tower.
And steel buildings collapse from fire all the time. It isn't even considered newsworthy. It's a routine occurrance.
Just another Big Lie being spread by "troothers".
Please name a few of the steel building that have collapsed from fire?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 10 2007, 12:25 PM)
Please name a few of the steel building that have collapsed from fire?
Please show a steel tube framed high rise that hasn't collapsed after plane impact and fire?
Please show a steel tube framed high rise that hasn't collapsed after plane impact and fire?
newton
No, we accuse you of ZERO Dimensional thinking(no thinking whatsoever).
Where are the thermite devices that would be everywhere you say the frame was weakened, the cut off beams, the slag???
In fact, you cannot produce a single valid piece of evidence for ANY of these...lurid speculations about "they" . You don't have to SHOW how it could be done. You don't have to provide the least bit of evidence that it WAS done. You don't even have to take into account the laws of physics as to what is POSSIBLE given the TONS of evidence NIST had to consider. So your conclusions are limited only by the imaginations of you and your fellow tinhatters, while NIST and those of us who accept their science ARE limited to the reality that the evidence indicates. Evidence of explosives was not concealed by some lunatic worthy conspiracy theory, IT WAS NEVER THERE!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
and regarding whether thermobarics or thermate or rdx were used, (or spacebeams and nukes and a tesla howitzer), and whether the triggers were wired or wireless, ....
they used them all(possibly). each device has a different function. weaken slowly with thermate, than a thermobaric blast or two, and then some rdx.
also, at the same time the spray on rocket fuel 'fireproofing replacement' was triggered. (thanks for that neu fonze)
why do OCTs insist on one type of device? and they accuse 'us' of 'one dimensional thinking'.
they used them all(possibly). each device has a different function. weaken slowly with thermate, than a thermobaric blast or two, and then some rdx.
also, at the same time the spray on rocket fuel 'fireproofing replacement' was triggered. (thanks for that neu fonze)
why do OCTs insist on one type of device? and they accuse 'us' of 'one dimensional thinking'.
No, we accuse you of ZERO Dimensional thinking(no thinking whatsoever).
Where are the thermite devices that would be everywhere you say the frame was weakened, the cut off beams, the slag???
In fact, you cannot produce a single valid piece of evidence for ANY of these...lurid speculations about "they" . You don't have to SHOW how it could be done. You don't have to provide the least bit of evidence that it WAS done. You don't even have to take into account the laws of physics as to what is POSSIBLE given the TONS of evidence NIST had to consider. So your conclusions are limited only by the imaginations of you and your fellow tinhatters, while NIST and those of us who accept their science ARE limited to the reality that the evidence indicates. Evidence of explosives was not concealed by some lunatic worthy conspiracy theory, IT WAS NEVER THERE!!!
Grumpy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgb-MU1BsC0&NR=1
Notice toward the end of the clip that the top block seems to have struck the ground and a wall of it appears out of the dust falling over.
Grumpy
Notice toward the end of the clip that the top block seems to have struck the ground and a wall of it appears out of the dust falling over.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Please name a few of the steel building that have collapsed from fire?
Here's one from a google search on "fire steel truss collapse".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Please name a few of the steel building that have collapsed from fire? |
Here's one from a google search on "fire steel truss collapse".
Partial Roof Collapse in Commercial Structure Fire Claims the
Lives of Two Career Fire Fighters - Tennessee
(A summary of a NIOSH fire fighter fatality investigation)
...
"For example, truss systems can fail quickly after being
exposed to fire. Steel has no fire resistance and will
fail when heated to temperatures that are routinely
attained by fire. An unprotected steel-bar joist can
collapse after five to ten minutes of exposure to fire.
The temperature at which steel fails is 1,100 degrees
Fahrenheit. Temperatures of 1,000 degrees
Fahrenheit can be reached within the first five minutes
of a fire, and 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit can be
attained within 10 minutes."
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200318.pdf
Here's three more from FireRescue Magazine
June 2005:
QUOTE
The Wichita (Kan.) Fire Department sent a second alarm as they turned out for a 1971 fire in an automobile shop with a steel-trussed roof because of the dramatic loom-up of smoke. Four firefighters (including the chief) died in the subsequent roof collapse, which was accelerated by heavy auto parts stored on the truss’ bottom chord.
...
The worst firefighter truss disaster was the collapse of a steel parallel-chord truss, which killed 13 Brocton, Mass., firefighters in the 1940s. More recently, Wakefield (Mass.) firefighters properly preplanned a lodge hall and were out of the building when a similar truss failed.
http://www.firerescue1.com/firerescue-magazine/23-6/112827/
...
The worst firefighter truss disaster was the collapse of a steel parallel-chord truss, which killed 13 Brocton, Mass., firefighters in the 1940s. More recently, Wakefield (Mass.) firefighters properly preplanned a lodge hall and were out of the building when a similar truss failed.
http://www.firerescue1.com/firerescue-magazine/23-6/112827/
These didn't hit your front page?
Maybe that's because it happens so often that it isn't considered "news".
Steel truss structures fail all the time. Ask any fireman.
It is all in fact very simple and one dont need to be some Einstein to figure it out.
A fire can not destroy a massive steel structure CD style. It just dont happened that way on planet Earth. It is maybe possible on some other planet... but planet Earth ? Impossible.
WTC 7 is obvious CD but WTC 1&2 was not ordinary CD. It was some magic trick there which is hard to figure out how exactly was done...and when they destroyed and later hide the evidence ... it is ofcource harder to find out exactly how it was done. But explosive involved... no question.
A fire can not destroy a massive steel structure CD style. It just dont happened that way on planet Earth. It is maybe possible on some other planet... but planet Earth ? Impossible.
WTC 7 is obvious CD but WTC 1&2 was not ordinary CD. It was some magic trick there which is hard to figure out how exactly was done...and when they destroyed and later hide the evidence ... it is ofcource harder to find out exactly how it was done. But explosive involved... no question.
wcelliott
But the firemen are all in on it, and these reports are designed to hide the facts of 9/11.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Steel truss structures fail all the time. Ask any fireman.
But the firemen are all in on it, and these reports are designed to hide the facts of 9/11.
Grumpy
QUOTE
But explosive involved... no question.
And how, exactly, did "THEY" get the bomb-sniffing dogs to go along with the conspiracy?
Watch this, and see how slowly the collapse happened.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...528290546&hl=en
You can't do that with explosives.
The building was collapsing from the time of impact until the last chunk of debris hit the street, it just started out slow and accelerated.
So when do you start the stopwatch?
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 10 2007, 11:07 AM)
WTC 1&2 was not ordinary CD. It was some magic trick there which is hard to figure out how exactly was done...and when they destroyed and later hide the evidence ... it is ofcource harder to find out exactly how it was done. But explosive involved... no question.
ROTFLMAO
Now we are into MAGIC.
Arthur
ROTFLMAO
Now we are into MAGIC.
Arthur
Daru
Until you show conclusively that explosives were used, you cannot say explosives were "involved...no question". The burden is on you to provide valid evidence or conclusive evidence that the people involved(firefighters, police, etc.) were not only corrupt in hiding evidence but guilty of murder either before or after the fact.
WTC 7 obviously fell because of damage and fires caused by the fall of tower 1, which fell because of all the damage and widespread fires caused by the impact of an aircraft. That is what the evidence DOES support. Explosives/thermite/nuclear/thermobaric/ray beams from space, not so much(in fact, NONE).
Grumpy
QUOTE
WTC 7 is obvious CD but WTC 1&2 was not ordinary CD. It was some magic trick there which is hard to figure out how exactly was done...and when they destroyed and later hide the evidence ... it is ofcource harder to find out exactly how it was done. But explosive involved... no question.
Until you show conclusively that explosives were used, you cannot say explosives were "involved...no question". The burden is on you to provide valid evidence or conclusive evidence that the people involved(firefighters, police, etc.) were not only corrupt in hiding evidence but guilty of murder either before or after the fact.
WTC 7 obviously fell because of damage and fires caused by the fall of tower 1, which fell because of all the damage and widespread fires caused by the impact of an aircraft. That is what the evidence DOES support. Explosives/thermite/nuclear/thermobaric/ray beams from space, not so much(in fact, NONE).
Grumpy
OK... maybe better to have it "magic"
But people who say a fire destroyed wtc... they really belives in magic:
"...initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes... Where the combustibles were not significantly relocated by the aircraft debris, they (the office fire) tended to burn out in about 20 min..." (p.183)
wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (18 MB)
But people who say a fire destroyed wtc... they really belives in magic:
"...initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes... Where the combustibles were not significantly relocated by the aircraft debris, they (the office fire) tended to burn out in about 20 min..." (p.183)
wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (18 MB)
wcelliott
Daru
Daru
"...initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes... Where the combustibles were not significantly relocated by the aircraft debris, they (the office fire) tended to burn out in about 20 min..." (p.183)
wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (18 MB)
The fires spread rapidly and moved from fuel to fuel. The heat was applied to those trusses for about 45 min. in the case of 2, 1 hour for 1 because they were at the top of every floor(where the heat rises and accumulates). Once warpage and heat induced weakening reached beyond a certain point the towers fell, just as all all steel structures will. Without substantial fire proofing(IE steel reinforced concrete, etc) solid steel CANNOT stand up to fire.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Partial Roof Collapse in Commercial Structure Fire Claims the
Lives of Two Career Fire Fighters - Tennessee
(A summary of a NIOSH fire fighter fatality investigation)
...
"For example, truss systems can fail quickly after being
exposed to fire. Steel has no fire resistance and will
fail when heated to temperatures that are routinely
attained by fire. An unprotected steel-bar joist can
collapse after five to ten minutes of exposure to fire.
The temperature at which steel fails is 1,100 degrees
Fahrenheit. Temperatures of 1,000 degrees
Fahrenheit can be reached within the first five minutes
of a fire, and 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit can be
attained within 10 minutes."
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200318.pdf
Lives of Two Career Fire Fighters - Tennessee
(A summary of a NIOSH fire fighter fatality investigation)
...
"For example, truss systems can fail quickly after being
exposed to fire. Steel has no fire resistance and will
fail when heated to temperatures that are routinely
attained by fire. An unprotected steel-bar joist can
collapse after five to ten minutes of exposure to fire.
The temperature at which steel fails is 1,100 degrees
Fahrenheit. Temperatures of 1,000 degrees
Fahrenheit can be reached within the first five minutes
of a fire, and 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit can be
attained within 10 minutes."
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200318.pdf
Daru
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Partial Roof Collapse in Commercial Structure Fire Claims the Lives of Two Career Fire Fighters - Tennessee (A summary of a NIOSH fire fighter fatality investigation) ... "For example, truss systems can fail quickly after being exposed to fire. Steel has no fire resistance and will fail when heated to temperatures that are routinely attained by fire. An unprotected steel-bar joist can collapse after five to ten minutes of exposure to fire. The temperature at which steel fails is 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit can be reached within the first five minutes of a fire, and 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit can be attained within 10 minutes." http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/pdfs/face200318.pdf |
Daru
"...initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes... Where the combustibles were not significantly relocated by the aircraft debris, they (the office fire) tended to burn out in about 20 min..." (p.183)
wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (18 MB)
The fires spread rapidly and moved from fuel to fuel. The heat was applied to those trusses for about 45 min. in the case of 2, 1 hour for 1 because they were at the top of every floor(where the heat rises and accumulates). Once warpage and heat induced weakening reached beyond a certain point the towers fell, just as all all steel structures will. Without substantial fire proofing(IE steel reinforced concrete, etc) solid steel CANNOT stand up to fire.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 10 2007, 08:28 AM)
Daru
Until you show conclusively that explosives were used, you cannot say explosives were "involved...no question". The burden is on you to provide valid evidence or conclusive evidence that the people involved(firefighters, police, etc.) were not only corrupt in hiding evidence but guilty of murder either before or after the fact.
WTC 7 obviously fell because of damage and fires caused by the fall of tower 1, which fell because of all the damage and widespread fires caused by the impact of an aircraft. That is what the evidence DOES support. Explosives/thermite/nuclear/thermobaric/ray beams from space, not so much(in fact, NONE).
Grumpy
Repost for the Grumster that is slow to understand:
This is a photo of the clean-up of WTC7. The picture was taken on Sept 27, 2001. All the steel is already removed from WTC 7. This is unbelievable, even if you planed ahead of time, it still is amazing. In the real world, they would be deciding the best way to investigate the only steel building to totally collapse from fire.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4247.jpg
There was absolutely no reason to remove the steel from WTC7 (would not hold up the search and rescue of the other buildings). NIST still does not understand the collapse.
WTC7 STEEL IS ALL REMOVED 16 DAYS AFTER THE ATTACK!
The largest CD in history (47 storeys) is cleaned up in less then 16 days and recycled. It normally takes 3-6 months to clean up smaller CD sites.
The public did not have access to the site and it was cleansed by private contractors. The proof should be on those that conducted the (non)investigation of the crime scene to prove explosive were not used in a collapse that looked just like a CD.
Until you show conclusively that explosives were used, you cannot say explosives were "involved...no question". The burden is on you to provide valid evidence or conclusive evidence that the people involved(firefighters, police, etc.) were not only corrupt in hiding evidence but guilty of murder either before or after the fact.
WTC 7 obviously fell because of damage and fires caused by the fall of tower 1, which fell because of all the damage and widespread fires caused by the impact of an aircraft. That is what the evidence DOES support. Explosives/thermite/nuclear/thermobaric/ray beams from space, not so much(in fact, NONE).
Grumpy
Repost for the Grumster that is slow to understand:
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 9 2007, 10:24 PM)
This is a photo of the clean-up of WTC7. The picture was taken on Sept 27, 2001. All the steel is already removed from WTC 7. This is unbelievable, even if you planed ahead of time, it still is amazing. In the real world, they would be deciding the best way to investigate the only steel building to totally collapse from fire.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4247.jpg
There was absolutely no reason to remove the steel from WTC7 (would not hold up the search and rescue of the other buildings). NIST still does not understand the collapse.
WTC7 STEEL IS ALL REMOVED 16 DAYS AFTER THE ATTACK!
The largest CD in history (47 storeys) is cleaned up in less then 16 days and recycled. It normally takes 3-6 months to clean up smaller CD sites.
The public did not have access to the site and it was cleansed by private contractors. The proof should be on those that conducted the (non)investigation of the crime scene to prove explosive were not used in a collapse that looked just like a CD.
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.